Pepperdine University

Graduate School of Education and Psychology

ASSESSMENT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

AND LEAN IMPLEMENTATION IN THE AEROSPACE INDUSTRY

A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education in Organizational Leadership

by

Jesus Arroyo

July, 2015

James Dellaneve, Ed.D. Dissertation Chairperson

 UMI Number: 3714891

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3714891
Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
This dissertation, written by

Jesus Arroyo

under the guidance of a faculty committee and approved by its members, has been submitted to
and accepted by the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Doctoral Committee:

James Dellaneve, Ed. D., Dissertation Chairperson

Leo Mallette, Ed. D.

June Schmieder-Ramirez, Ph.D.

 Copyright by Jesus Arroyo (2015)

All Rights Reserved

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vii

DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................. viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. ix

VITA ................................................................................................................................................x

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... xi

Chapter 1. The Problem ...................................................................................................................1

Background of the Problem .................................................................................................2

Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................7
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................8
Research Questions ............................................................................................................10
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................11
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................12
Key Assumptions ...............................................................................................................14
Limitations of the Study.....................................................................................................14
Summary and Organization of the Study ...........................................................................15

Chapter 2. Literature Review .........................................................................................................16

Lean History.......................................................................................................................16
Lean Theorists ....................................................................................................................22
Leadership ..........................................................................................................................27
Key Elements of Lean Implementation .............................................................................31
Organizational Culture .......................................................................................................33
Competing Values Framework ..........................................................................................37
Relationship Between Quality Initiatives and Organizational Culture ..............................47
Summary ............................................................................................................................55

Chapter 3. Methodology ................................................................................................................56

Restatement of Research Questions ...................................................................................56

Description of the Research Methodology ........................................................................57
Design of the Study............................................................................................................58
Population and Sample ......................................................................................................59
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................60
 v

Page

Data-Gathering Procedures ................................................................................................61

Data-Analysis Procedures ..................................................................................................63
Plans for IRB......................................................................................................................65
Summary ............................................................................................................................66

Chapter 4. Presentation and Analysis of the Data..........................................................................67

Answering the Research Questions ...................................................................................70

Research Question 1 ..........................................................................................................70
Research Question 2 ..........................................................................................................71
Summary ............................................................................................................................72

Chapter 5. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ..........................................................74

Summary of the Results .....................................................................................................74

Literature Review Analysis................................................................................................75
Literature in Support of the Findings .................................................................................77
Literature not in Support of the Findings ...........................................................................77
Literature Review Synthesis ..............................................................................................78
Conclusions and Implications ............................................................................................80
Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................83
Final Summary ...................................................................................................................87

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................91

APPENDIX A: Publisher Permission for Reprint .......................................................................106

APPENDIX B: Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) ....................................107

APPENDIX C: Permission to Use the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument .............110

APPENDIX D: Survey Instrument ..............................................................................................111

APPENDIX E: Academic Research Project Participant Notification E-Mail

to Potential Participants ......................................................................................114

APPENDIX F: Informed Consent Text .......................................................................................115

APPENDIX G: Certification for Protecting Human Research Participants .............................118

APPENDIX H: Institutional Review Board Approval Letter ......................................................118

 vi

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Dependent and Independent Variables ........................................................................59

Table 2. Frequency Counts for Selected Variables ....................................................................67

Table 3. Psychometric Characteristics for the Aggregated Scale Scores ..................................69

Table 4. Relationship of Lean Implementation Scores Based on Culture Type ........................70

Table 5. Relationship Between Organizational Culture Dimensions With

Lean Implementation Elements ...................................................................................72
 vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Competing values framework...........................................................................................6

Figure 2. Lean culture enables lean implementation .....................................................................10

Figure 3. Competing values framework.........................................................................................40

Figure 4. Dimensions of the competing values framework ...........................................................64

Figure 5. Research plan..................................................................................................................66

 viii

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my family. Thank you for your love and your faith in me.
 ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my dissertation chair Dr. James Dellaneve. His support and

feedback were vital in my dissertation. He provided me with positive feedback and was always

supportive of my dissertation goals and aspirations.

I would also like to thank my committee members: Dr. June Schmieder-Ramirez and Dr.

Leo Mallette. I appreciate their time and insightful support during the course of this study. In

addition, I would like to thank Dr. Tom Granoff for the expert support during the statistical

analysis stage of my research; his knowledge and guidance were of great assistance. I would also

like to thank Michele Lucero, my academic partner, for her encouragement and support through

this process.
 x

VITA

Jesus C. Arroyo

Education:

Doctorate of Education, Organizational Leadership (2015)

Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA

Master of Science, Engineering (2004)

Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA

Master of Business Administration, Management (2000)

California State University Dominguez Hills, Carson, CA

Master of Library Science, Information Science (1990)

University California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA

Bachelor of Science, Computer Science (1987)

University California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA

Professional Experience

Chief EngineerAssociate Tech Fellow (2006 present)

The Boeing Company

Manager (19962005)
The Boeing Company

Engineer (19871995)
The Boeing Company
 xi

ABSTRACT

The aerospace industry is facing a wide range of economic and global challenges that are

working together to put tremendous pressure to become more efficient. These challenges are

forcing organizations to utilize the skills and competencies of its human resources more

effectively. Firms must encourage behaviors and work practices that help elicit the

organizations potential. For most aerospace organizations, leana total quality management

approachhas become a tool for addressing these challenges and meeting expectations. Many

researchers see lean as a general system to improve the profitability of manufacturing, but there

is some discontent in implementing lean manufacturing. Some researchers explain that

implementing lean requires creating a particular culture. The purpose of the quantitative study is

to examine the role that organizational culture has on successful lean implementation. The

purpose of this paper is to analyze and determine if there is a relationship between the

organizational culture type (Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy, and Market) and culture dimension

(Flexibility versus Control, and Internal versus External), as the Competing Values Framework

and the 3 lean implementation elements (Support, Utilization, and Infrastructure) define.

Understanding the relationship between organizational culture and lean implementation elements

will provide leadership with useful knowledge to facilitate the implementation of strategies that

enhance the effectiveness of their lean initiatives. An exhaustive literature review on the

academic and practitioner research provides a foundation for understanding lean manufacturing

practices. The study uses a quantitative research approach to analyze the data gathered from an

aerospace organization. The researcher utilized an online questionnaire to assess the 3

components of lean implementation and the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument to

assess the organizational cultural type. A sample of 83 completed responses were received and
 xii

analyzed using one-way ANOVA tests with accompanying eta coefficients for the 3 lean

implementation elements with culture type. No significant relationship was found between

culture type and support (p = .26), infrastructure (p = .24) or utilization (p = .15).

 1

Chapter 1: The Problem

The aerospace industry is facing unprecedented change (Bennis & Thomas, 2002) and an

imperative to improve quality and reduce cost in order to survive (Aragon-Sanchez, Barba-

Aragon, & Sanz-Valle, 2003). The forces driving this pressure for change are many: global

competitiveness (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006), rapid technological change and changes in the

complexity and fluidity of work environments.

The pace of change is increasing in the marketplace, and industry leaders are

implementing lean-manufacturing practices in order to maintain competitiveness (Crute, Ward,

Brown, & Graves, 2003). Lean manufacturing practices are accepted across different industries

as the most efficient strategies for the design and manufacture of high-quality products

(Openheim, 2011). Lean manufacturing practices consist of a set of principles that are customer

focused and knowledge driven, and collectively, strive to eliminate waste and to create value,

dynamically and continuously (Womack & Jones, 2003). As a result of competition and recent

cuts in defense spending, aerospace organizations are pressured to embrace lean methods as the

strategy to create change to meet customers demands while maintaining relevance in the

business environment (Balle & Balle, 2009).

There is a perception that in order to successfully implement lean in an organization, the

culture needs to be taken into account. According to Eckes (2001) in recent years there have

been a number of studies that identify the critical influence an organizations culture has on a

successfully implementing a quality initiative . According to Schein (1992) culture is a crucial

component of an organizations effectiveness and in most cases it is one of the most stable and

influential forces that dominate the behavior of the organization. The model that is used in this

study to provide structure to the concept of organizational culture is the Competing Values
 2

Framework (Cameron, Quinn, Degraff, & Thakor, 2006). The analysis for this framework is

based on the organizational functionality as it relates to the organizations values (Cameron &

Quinn, 1999). The competing values model was originally developed as a way to evaluate

organizations and their effectiveness, culture, and leadership behaviors (Cameron et al., 2006).

The basic theoretical framework recognizes that competing values exist in all organizations. The

value in using the competing values model is derived from the ability to diagnose and facilitate

change in an organization. The competing values model consists of four quadrants, each

representing a distinct set of organizational effectiveness indicators. The four quadrants represent

four opposite assumptions that distinguish characteristics of cultural types: clan, adhocracy,

market, and hierarchy.

Background of the Problem

Government reductions in defense spending have necessitated aerospace companies to

offer more affordable products, enabling them to compete more effectively in a demanding

market. Improving product affordability has motivated companies to embrace lean principles to

eliminate waste and reduce costs. Companies that have successfully implemented lean principles

have achieved results that are readily noticeable and measureable (Carreira, 2005). Lean thinking

has become more than a manufacturing system. It has been argued that as a result of global

competition, organizations that are not lean will not survive (James, 2005). Thus, lean initiatives

are common in all facets of business (Schoenberger, 2001).

From the beginning lean tools received the most attention a fact that its evident because

most of the early lean research was conducted to define and propose the usage of specific lean

tools (Shah & Ward, 2007) and techniques, which are also called lean practices (Oliver,

Delbridge, & Lowe, 1996; Shah & Ward, 2003; Worley & Doolen, 2006), lean activities (Duque
 3

& Cadavid, 2007), or lean elements (Gurumurthy & Kodali, 2009). Davies and Kochar (2002)

pointed out in their literature study the difficulties practitioners still face; they raise questions

about how to prioritize lean practices, how the economic environment influences the priorities of

implementing lean practices, and on the dependency of the industry sector. They questioned

whether lean is transportable to all industries, and whether lean practices need to be modified

frequently. These difficulties lead to a low success rate in implementing lean manufacturing

(Koenigsaecker, 2005; Sohal & Egglestone, 1994), which is evidence that manufacturing

management does not know how to properly implement lean. If management fails to implement

lean manufacturing, manufacturers will have to move their production overseas and more

manufacturing jobs will be lost. In order to improve the success rate of implementing lean, in

recent years researchers began to shift their research focus on lean; these researchers (Bhasin &

Burcher, 2006; Gander, 2009; Mann, 2009) argued that a certain culture is necessary to

implement lean practices; more specifically, a culture in which all employees are engaged in CI

(Choi & Liker, 1995; Huehn-Brown & Murray, 2010; Liker & Morgan, 2006).

Lean is a methodology that reduces costs and positively affects the quality of an

organization overall s processes and services to the customer (Pande, Neuman, & Cavanaugh,

2000). As a result, a number of organizations have implemented lean with positive results,

including reducing manufacturing cycle time, increasing profits, and quality improvements

(Antony & Seow, 2007). Lean thinking refers to a collection of principles and tools that aim on

the identification and elimination of non value-added activities (waste) that is involved in

producing a product or delivering a service to customers (Womack & Jones, 2003). The concept

of lean production consists of a complex cocktail of ideas including continuous improvement,

flattened organization structures, teamwork, the elimination of waste, efficient use of resources
 4

and cooperative supply chain management (Green, 1999, p. 133). Nationwide, numerous

companies of varying sizes and across multiple industry sectors, primarily in manufacturing and

service sectors are implementing lean methods. According to Openheim (2011), the rate of lean

adoption is accelerating. Organizations apply lean tools to their processes to boost company

profits and competitiveness. Lean tools enhance the organizations quality and reduce costs,

ultimately increasing profits.

Lean also involves managing people (Balle & Balle, 2009). Managing people during a

change is a challenge, resulting from the dynamics of people and technology (Pettigrew,

Woodman, & Cameron, 2001). In fact, Balogun & Hailey (2004) determined that 70% of

organizational change initiatives fail. Organizations must continue to develop strategies to

facilitate change in order to be successful (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Leaders are aggressively

searching for strategies to lead their organizations to an increased level of efficiency. Lean

changes the organizations culture (Womack & Jones, 2003). Organizations might recognize the

need for change, but do not implement effective strategies to facilitate the change. Creating

change in any organization for the purposes of increased support and enhanced reputation is a

difficult process. Robbins and Judge (2008) wrote, One of the most well-documented findings

from studies of individual and organizational behavior is that organizations and their members

resist change (p. 268).

More recent research considers lean to be an adaptable, holistic system (Gharajedaghi &

Ackoff, 1984) that is dependent on the environment (Doolen & Hacker, 2005). Therefore,

companies should not focus on the implementation of lean practices alone; they should focus on

implementing a holistic lean system. Researchers further discussed that the underlying

assumptions for implementing lean would be a culture of continuous improvement and employee
 5

engagement (Choi & Liker, 1995; Liker & Hoseus, 2008). Huehn-Brown and Murray (2010)

came to a similar conclusion, summarized their findings, and stated that lean is aimed at

continuous improvement by all team members (p. 2). These more recent studies suggest that in

order to implement lean thinking change in the organization will occur. Implementing change is

difficult as Duck (1993) described change as intensely personal and argued that for change to

occur fully in any organization, every leader and follower must think, feel, or do something

different than they have done previously. This research will analyze the relationship between

organizational culture and lean implementation to provide information to leaders that may assist

them in implement lean thinking in the organization. Duque and Cadavid (2007) argued that a

companys culture is influenced by their leaders, and therefore implementing a lean culture is

dependent on the companys leadership support.

The Competing Values Framework, illustrated in Figure 1, is built on two cultural

dimensions. Permission to use Figure 1 is shown in Appendix A. One dimension differentiates

flexibility and discretion from stability and control. The other dimension differentiates internal

focus and integration from external focus and differentiation. These two dimensions form four

quadrants, each quadrant consists of core values that represent a specific organization cultural

type (Cameron et al., 2006). For example, organizations that fall in the quadrant representing the

clan culture have an internal focus and an emphasis on being flexible and adaptable to the

environment. The quadrant to the right, see Figure 1, which is the adhocracy culture also

emphasizes flexibility, but focuses more on external items such as competition and the customer.

The lower left quadrant below the clan represents the hierarchy culture, which is both control and

internal oriented. To the right of hierarchy is the market culture, and this one is also control

oriented but it has a more external focus.

 6

Figure 1. Competing values framework. From Diagnosing and changing organizationalculture:

Based on the competing values framework (3rd ed). (p. 35), by Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E.
(2011). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Harry and Schroeder (2000) argued that the main elements that are critical to the

successful implementation of a lean initiative are, support, utilization, and infrastructure. The

element of support is mainly concerned with management involvement and the commitment to

implement lean. Based on literature the continuous support from top management is essential,

without it the importance of the quality initiative would be in doubt and the momentum behind it

would be ineffective (Pande et al., 2000). The organizations leaders should also become versed

in the change process. One change theorist, Kotter (1999), identified three phases to help ensure

a successful change implementation occurs. The first step involves laying the groundwork for

change. This is accomplished by conveying the need and purpose for the change. The purpose of

the change should be communicated along with the benefits associated with the change. Another

key ingredient in laying the groundwork and in additional stages is the leaderships commitment

to the Lean initiative. The organizations leadership must create and communicate a clear and

concise vision for Lean.

 7

Another key Lean component is infrastructure. Sousa and Voss (2002) emphasized the

importance of infrastructure and the clarification of all staffs roles and responsibilities in quality

management. The infrastructure and role clarity help staff understand how their contribution to

quality improvement helps to strengthen their motivation toward quality management. An

element of lean implementation is having an adequate organizational infrastructure that can

execute. Therefore, the organizations infrastructure is a component that needs to be conducive

to support a successful lean implementation (Snee & Hoerl, 2003).

Lean methodology includes the utilization of statistical tools that are important elements

that have been identified to be critical to successful lean implementation (Breyfogle, Cupelllo, &

Meadows, 2001). Developing and implementing policies on the use of metrics and connecting

with training and compensation will help influence employees abilities and inclinations to use

Lean methodology. Cameron and Freeman (1991) described the importance of altering reward

systems, work procedures, objectives and work teams to influence changes in behavior. These

strategies are important for ensuring the successful implementation of a Lean initiative.

Statement of the Problem

The failure rate of most planned organizational lean initiatives is extremely high. It is

well known, for example, that as many as three-quarters of lean initiatives including:

reengineering, total quality management (TQM), strategic planning, and downsizing efforts have

failed entirely and in some cases have created problems serious enough that the survival of the

organization was threatened (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). Several studies reported the most

frequent reason for failure was the neglect of the organizations culture (Cameron et al., 2006).

Evidence suggested organizations that succeeded in improving business performance

changed their cultures to align with process improvement frameworks (McAdam & Lafferty,
 8

2004). Organizational culture represents a crucial component of the lean initiative (Rad, 2006).

Carnell (2004) argues that a failure to consider an organizations culture would devolve lean

implementation into a mindless execution of an activity performed by disinterested employees.

Current research has not yet evaluated the relationship between organizational culture in

the aerospace industry and lean implementation. Based on the lack of evidence, a need exists for

research that would help aerospace organizations understand the factor that organizational

culture has as a component of a successful lean implementation. Understanding the factor that

organization culture has on lean implement is critical in todays demanding global economy.

Therefore, the intent of this study is to create new knowledge regarding the relation between

organizational culture and lean implementation that can serve as a foundation for aerospace

organizations seeking to implement lean in the early part of their life cycle. This study will

identify if there is any relationship between organizational culture type (clan, adhocracy,

hierarchy, or market) and the three lean implementation elements (support, utilization, and

infrastructure). The study will also identify if there is any relationship between the two

organizational culture dimensions (flexibility versus control and internal versus external) and the

three lean implementation elements (support, utilization, and infrastructure).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this quantitative study is to explore and evaluate the role that

organizational culture has on successful lean implementation and to identify if there is any

relationship between the organizational culture type (Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy, and Market)

and culture dimension (Flexibility versus Control, and Internal versus External) as the

Competing Values Framework and three lean implementation elements (Support, Utilization, and

Infrastructure) define.
 9

The study of the relationship between and an organizations cultural types and key

elements of lean implementation (Support, Utilization, and Infrastructure) provides valuable

information showing the alignment of cultural types and lean implementations critical elements.

For example, organizations that have characteristics associated with the market cultural type, an

emphasis on meeting goals and productivity, are more aligned for statistical tools high-level

utilization. This study also analyzes the relationship between the characteristics associated with a

hierarchical culture, and management defined roles, this type is more conducive to the

infrastructure component. The clan culture has characteristics that are associated with open

communication, cooperation, and cohesiveness. These characteristics might be more conducive

to management support.

In order to improve the success rate of lean manufacturing, there is a need to study the

relationship between organizational culture and elements of lean implementation. Successful

changes to technical systems required related changes to social systems such as organizational

culture (Pasmore, 1988). According to Pasmore (1988) there is empirical research that shows

that the implementation of process improvement frameworks was equally as likely to fail as to

succeed. Studies indicate that organizations which were successful with process improvement

initiatives consistently described changes made to culture as well as methods (Cameron et al.,

2006). As Figure 2 shows organizational culture is one of the four components of a successful

lean implementation, the components are: Organizational culture, Infrastructure, Support, and

Utilization. Based on the literature review to for an organization to succeed with lean

implementation all four of these components must be implemented to their fullest extent. This

study emphasizes that lean is a total system and represents an organizations complete and

comprehensive culture change. Lean represents a new way of managing the organization.
 10

Figure 2. Lean culture enables lean implementation.

Research Questions

Two research questions have been created to examine the relationship between

organizational culture and key elements of lean implementation:

Research question 1: What is the relationship between organizational culture type (clan,

adhocracy, hierarchy, or market) and the three lean implementation elements (support,

utilization, and infrastructure)?

Null hypothesis 1: The organizational culture type (clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, or market)

is not related to any of the three lean implementation elements (support, utilization, and

infrastructure)?
 11

Alternative hypothesis 1: The organizational culture type (clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, or

market) is related to at least one of the three lean implementation elements (support, utilization,

and infrastructure)?

Research question 2: What is the relationship between the two organizational culture

dimensions (flexibility versus control and internal versus external) and the three lean

implementation elements (support, utilization, and infrastructure)?

Null hypothesis 2: Neither of the two organizational culture dimensions (flexibility

versus control and internal versus external) will be related to any of the three lean

implementation elements (support, utilization, and infrastructure).

Alternative hypothesis 2: At least one of the two organizational culture dimensions

(flexibility versus control and internal versus external) will be related to at least one of the three

lean implementation elements (support, utilization, and infrastructure).

Significance of the Study

Becoming a lean company requires a careful strategy (Womack & Jones, 1996). Lean

thinking brings significant change to corporate culture that necessitates strong project leadership,

visible support from top management, and patience (Balle & Balle, 2009). It is important for

management to understand that the change to a lean environment must be implemented only after

careful planning and consideration (MacDonald, 1998).

The intent of this research is to provide the opportunity to examine the role that

organizational culture has on successful lean implementation. The outcome of this research will

enhance the understating of the impacts of deploying lean initiatives by providing quantitative

information on how specific cultural characteristics impact the key components of a lean

initiative. Having this understanding will assist aerospace organizations that are in the process of
 12

implementing lean initiatives by providing research that will help the success rate of lean

implementation resulting on being more competitive.

Definition of Terms

Adhocracy culture: An adhocracy culture is one of the four organizational cultural types

the Competing Values Framework identifies and it is hereby defined as organizations that have

an external focus characterized by a dynamic, entrepreneurial, and creative work place [in

which] people stick their necks out and take risks (Cameron et al., 2006, p. 45).

Change: In the context of this study, a workplace procedure initiated by one or more

organizational leaders, intends to achieve certain results through the modification of other

peoples behaviors or routines, with the success or failure to achieve these modifications having

consequences for the particular organizational unit or the organization (Herold & Fedor, 2008).

Clan culture: A clan culture is one of the four organizational cultural types the Competing

Values Framework identifies, and is hereby defined as organizations that have an internal focus

shared values and goals, cohesion, participativeness, individuality, and a sense of we-ness [in

which] the organization places a premium on teamwork, participation, and consensus (Cameron

et al., 2006, p. 43).

Competing values framework: The Competing Values Framework is categorized into

four quadrants with two dimensions (Cameron et al., 2006). One dimension differentiates

effectiveness criteria that emphasize flexibility; discretion; and dynamism from stability, order,

and control. The other dimension differentiates effectiveness criteria that emphasize an internal

orientation; integration; and unity from external orientation, differentiation, and rivalry.

Together, these four quadrants represent a model that provides a set of organizational

effectiveness indicators by connecting an organizations strategic, interpersonal, and institutional

 13

aspects in relationships to the dimensions of flexibility-control and internal or external

orientation.

Hierarchical culture: A hierarchical culture is one of the four organizational cultural types

the Competing Values Framework identifies, and its hereby defined as organizations that have an

internal focus large numbers of standardized procedures, multiple hierarchy levels, and

emphasis on rule reinforcement (Cameron et al., 2006, p. 38).

Lean tools and techniques: Lean, from an operational perspective, involves implementing

a set of shop-floor tools and techniques aimed at reducing waste within the plant and along the

supply chain (Liker, 2004; Treville & Antonakis, 2006). Such tools and techniques include setup

time reduction, Kaizen (i.e., continuous improvement), Six-Sigma quality, visual displays (e.g.,

5S), Kanban, Just-In-Time supply systems, and preventative maintenance (Shah & Ward, 2003).

Lean: For the purposes of this study, lean is defined as a set of principles aimed at the

elimination of waste that when implemented, increase value for the customer (Baines, Lightfoot,

Williams, & Greenough, 2006). Researchers use the terms lean, lean production, lean thinking,

and lean manufacturing when discussing lean subjects. These terms are often used

interchangeably in this study and are assumed to have the same meaning.

Market culture: A market culture is one of four organizational cultural types the

Competing Values Framework identifies, and it is defined as organizations that have an external

focus driven by customer focus, premium returns on assets, and improved corporate

competitiveness [in which] leaders are hard-driving producers and competitors [and] the long-

term concern is on competitive actions and achieving stretch goals and targets (Cameron et al.,

2006, p. 40).
 14

Organizational culture: An organizational culture can be defined as a pattern of shared

assumptions and beliefs. Schein (2004) believes that culture has three levels: (a) artifacts, (b)

espoused values, and (c) basic underlying assumptions. These three levels influence how the

organizations members perceive, think, and act (Schein, 1992).

TQM: TQM is a management approach for continuous improvement for managing

systems, involving employees, and ensuring customer satisfaction (Womack & Jones, 1996).

Key Assumptions

The studys assumptions follow:

1. The information collected from selected aerospace company managers and employees

is relevant to other aerospace companies throughout the United States.

2. Aerospace managers and employees answered questions in an honest and

conscientious manner.

3. It is assumed that those interviewed answered all interview questions truthfully; thus,

providing a true description of the facts as they see them.

Limitations of the Study

This studys limitations include:

1. This quantitative study of the assessment of the relationship between organization

culture and lean implementation suggests a deductive-reasoning approach or a

statistical perspective related to the research. In a qualitative study, the researcher

plays a larger role in data interpretation (Creswell, 2009).

2. This study was limited to American aerospace companies. Data collected from

companies from other countries might produce different findings.

 15

3. Data were collected only during the third quarter of 2014. The study might reflect the

state of aerospace industry during this industry lifecycle.

Summary and Organization of the Study

Chapter 1 describes the background of the problem and the purpose of this research.

Change is ongoing and organizations often need to alter their strategies and structure (Hannan &

Freeman, 1984). Limitations and assumptions were described and key terms were defined. The

purpose of the quantitative study is to examine the role that organizational culture has on

successful lean implementation. To gain an understanding of any relationship between the

organizational culture type (Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy, and Market) and culture dimension

(Flexibility versus Control, and Internal versus External) as defined by the Competing Values

Framework and three lean implementation elements (Support, Utilization, and Infrastructure).

Chapter 2 includes a review of the literature on lean, the historical background of lean,

transformation leadership, characteristics of organizational culture, and a description of the

competing Values Framework. Chapter 3 consists of a restatement of research questions,

description of research methodology, process for selection of data sources, definition of analysis

unit, definition of data gathering instrument, validity of data gathering instrument, data gathering

procedures, reliability of data gathering instrument and data gathering procedures, description of

proposed data analysis processes, sample tables for proposed data analysis, plans for Institutional

Review Board approval, and a summary. Results and discussion are covered in Chapter 4 and

conclusions and recommendations are explored and captured in Chapter 5.

 16

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The intent of this chapter is to review the existing theoretical and applied research

surrounding the relationship between organizational culture and successful lean implementation.

This chapter includes the following major topics, as they pertain to the study: (a) lean history; (b)

lean theorists; (c) leadership; (d) key elements of lean implementation, (e) organizational culture;

(f) an explanation of the competing Values Framework (Cameron & Quinn, 1999); (g)

description of previous studies that addressed the relationship between quality initiatives and

organizational culture; (h) and summary of the literature review.

Lean History

Lean is a term that was first used at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to

describe the Japanese production system, where use of less effort, space, and material resulted in

higher output and quality (Murman et al., 2002). Lean principles are derived from the Japanese

manufacturing industry. The Toyota Motor Corporation is credited the first to implement lean

concepts to create a more efficient workplace, maximizing customer value and minimizing waste

(Bush, 2007; Womack & Jones, 2003). The intent of lean manufacturing is to create smooth

work flows by using lean techniques to reduce waste in the process and create value for the end

customer (Belson, 2010). When looked at more broadly, the Toyota Production System is about

applying the principles of the Toyota Way (Liker, 2004, p. 34). The Toyota way is based on a

serious commitment to improve continuously processes. Continuous improvement is the

process of making incremental improvements, no matter how small, and achieving the lean goal

of eliminating all waste that adds costs without adding value (Liker, 2004, p. 24). The roots of

continuous improvement can be traced to Henry Fords assembly line concept (Sorensen, 1956).

Lean principles were in place in the Ford Motor Company before Toyotas Ohno and Shingo
 17

employed them in Japan (Ford & Crowther, 2003). These include small lots, single-piece flow,

motion efficiency, work cells, continual improvement, visual controls, standard work, supply

chain management, just-in-time inventory, dock-to-factory-floor, set-up reduction, and others

(Levinson, 2002). Although the Toyota Production System borrowed ideas and inspiration from

Henry Ford, its needs could not be adequately met by Henry Fords mass production model

(Liker, 2004). The most distinctive feature was the lack of natural resources, which made it

necessary for the Japanese to import vast amounts of materials. For this reason Japan was at a

disadvantage in terms of the cost of raw materials when compared with European and American

countries (Sugimori, Kusunoki, Cho, & Uchikawa, 1977). To overcome this problem, it was

essential for Japanese organizations to make drastic improvements in order to produce higher

quality goods that had higher better value at an even lower production cost than those of other

countries. The Toyota Production System was Toyotas response to overcome the three daunting

challenges it faced after World War II: The challenges were first (a) catering to the needs of a

domestic market, a market that was small but demanded better product variety, (b) inability of

the capital- at that time companies were unable to make huge investments in Western

technologies, and (c) competing with well-established foreign brands such as General Motors

and Ford (Cusumano, 1985). This concept proved successful and came to be generalized as lean

production.

The 80s and 90s saw a rise in both the conceptual and empirical understanding of the

Toyota Production System concept. Beginning in 1985, MIT undertook a detailed study of

Japanese manufacturing methods and a worldwide automotive manufacturing benchmarking

effort known as the International Motor Vehicle Program (Womack, Jones, & Roos, 1990). The

term lean production arguably was first used in a MIT Sloan Management Review article by
 18

John Krafcik who worked as a researcher on the MIT international motor vehicle study. Krafcik

(1988) wrote an article titled, Triumph of the Lean Productions System based on his masters

thesis at MIT. In his article, Krafcik used the term lean production to describe TPS. IMVP

continued Kraficiks research at MIT. Womack, Jones, and Roos (1996) published an

international best-selling book called The Machine That Changed the World. This book provided

a complete historical account of lean and brought the studys results to the attention of a wide

audience of U.S. manufacturers. Womack and Jones (1996) published their follow-up book, Lean

Thinking, to introduce the philosophy and tools of lean, based on the practices of TPS.

Most of the principles of lean are logical and simple to understand, a fact that is

overlooked the moment issues appear, as people get wrapped up with their daily activities

(Beckert & Posegga, 1995). Lean production is based upon TPS and was originally proposed as a

set of tools that assist in the identification and elimination of waste (muda). The TPS focus is

upon improving the flow or smoothness of work, thereby steadily eliminating unevenness. TPS

was developed over many years to compete in a market where customers demanded diversity in

the products they purchase (Ohno, 1988). Toyotas philosophy is to use and discard tools

depending on the ways the tools address the organizations need. While the elimination of waste

through the use of lean tools is a core concept in the establishment of a lean system, it is not the

primary goal (Baines et al., 2006). The real goal of TPS is to create value for the customer

(Ohno, 1988). All of its systems, people, and decisions are directed at creating that value through

organizational learning and continuous improvement (Liker, 2004). Presently, many define lean

as creating value for the customer through elimination of waste (Baines et al., 2006).

Shah and Ward (2007) define lean production as an integrated socio-technical system

whose main objective is to eliminate waste by concurrently reducing or minimizing supplier,

 19

customer and internal variability (p. 791). Therefore, the most common understanding of lean is

removal of waste from a system while creating value for the customer (Womack & Jones, 2003).

The term lean thinking has come to describe individual processes that work to detect waste in the

form of time, inventory, motion, waiting, overproduction, overprocessing, and defects. Toyota

identified seven types of wastes that can be applied to many types of business processes:

overproduction, waiting, unnecessary transport, over processing, excess inventory, unnecessary

movement, and defects (Liker, 2004, p. 28). Identifying the value stream of a product or service

or a family of products or services is essential to identifying problems or waste (Womack &

Jones, 1996). Value is a capability provided to a customer at the right time at an appropriate

price, as defined in each case by the customer (Womack & Jones, 2003). In this context, any

necessary activity can be divided into three categories: (a) Value Added (VA) elements, (b) Non-

Value Added (NVA) steps, and (c) Required Non-Value Added (RVNA) steps. Value is defined

as something for which the customer is willing to pay. Activity the customer is not willing to pay

for is considered waste and a drain on the resources of the organization. Non-Value Added

activities are those that are performed but for which the customer is unwilling to pay. Non-Value

Added but necessary are those activities that the customer is unwilling to pay for, yet are

required for the basic completion of the task or process. Value-Added activities are those the

customer is ready to pay for and are needed for successful completion of the task (Nave, 2002).

Lean strives to eliminate waste and maximize value. With the successful reduction of

waste, or nonvalue added activities, in a process or system, cycle times and costs can be reduced.

According to Womack, Jones and Ross (1990), a lean manufacturing system is characterized as

using less of everything to manufacture the product. It uses half the human effort in the factory,

half the manufacturing space, half the investment in tools, half the engineering hours to develop
 20

a new product in half the time (Womack et al., 1990, p. 13). Therefore, lean implementation is

focused on getting the right things to the right place at the right time in the right quantity to

achieve perfect work flow, while minimizing waste and being flexible and able to change (Spear,

2004).

Lean is utilized in a wide range of industries, profit and nonprofit organizations,

government agencies, aerospace companies, and in other organizations as a means of producing

goods and delivering services that create value for the customer with a minimum amount of

waste and a maximum degree of quality (Balzer, 2010). Researchers accept the notion that lean

production over the last couple of decades has become an integral part of the manufacturing

infrastructure all across industrialized countries (Hopp & Spearman, 2000). The benefits of lean

implementation are well accepted by both a academicians and practitioners alike (Browning &

Heath, 2009). Lean has attracted much interest from the aerospace industry to help address the

opportunities for increased efficiency and effectiveness, with teams of researchers synthesizing

the lean practice of a number of Japanese companies. In 1993, the U.S. Air Force began to

investigate whether lean concepts and practices would provide value and cost savings in the

Department of Defense (George, 2003).

According to Womack and Jones (1996), in lean manufacturing, the integrated system is

composed of five primary principals, which represent the core of the lean-manufacturing

philosophy. These principles drive lean manufacturings economic benefits and consist of:

1. Precisely specify value by specific product. Specifying value for the customer is

critical starting point for lean thinking. Value is defined by the customer. It is more

meaningful when expressed in terms of a specific product (e.g., goods or service),

that meet customers needs at the right price and at the right time. In a manufacturing
 21

organization, value added involves activities that enhance the market form or function

of the product, for which the customer is willing to pay.

2. Map the value steam. Identify the entire value stream for each service, product, or

product family and eliminate waste. The value stream includes all of the specific

actions required to bring a specific service or product through three critical activities

in any business. By mapping the flow of the product through the manufacturing

process, one can identify waste, value added activity, and nonvalue-added activity.

Identifying the value stream almost always exposes enormous amounts of waste in

the form of unnecessary steps, backtracking, and scrap, as the throughput travels from

department to department and from company to company.

3. Make value flow. As the wasted steps are removed, the remaining value-creating

steps should flow. Making steps flow means no waiting, downtime, or waste, within

or between the steps. Therefore, working on each design, order, and product

continuously from beginning to end of the process, until the item is ready to be

consumed. This may require introducing new types of processes or technologies and

getting rid of expensive processes and tools large scale obstructions or complex

technology of which necessitates operating in a batch mode or requires unique

processes tailored for that technology.

4. Pull value. As flow is introduced, the customer should pull the product just as it is

being completed to provide what the customer wants only when the customer wants

it. Letting the customer pull the product or service from the value stream eliminates

the following types of waste: designs that are obsolete before the product is
 22

completed, finished goods, inventories, elaborate inventory-information tracking

systems.

5. Pursue perfection. A lean thinking enterprise sets its sights on perfection. Elimination

of waste is a never-ending process; the idea is to remove systematically and

continuously the root causes of poor quality, with the ultimate goal of achieving zero

defects.

These five lean manufacturing key concepts provide a conceptual framework that work as

a whole system and provide manufacturers the economic benefits and power of lean-production

systems (Womack & Jones, 1996).

Lean Theorists

Lean started with the TQM movement, led by quality gurus such as Crosby (1979),

Deming (1982), Feigenbaum (1991), Juran (1964), Shewhart (1980), and Taguchi (1986). TQM

as a holistic theory consists of many supporting theories. Each of the theorists discussed has

made significant contributions to the advancement of lean thinking by focusing on specific areas

of expertise. Lean methodology or lean thinking is not a new concept in the manufacturing

industry; lean thinking (Lucey, 2003), lean philosophy (Jobo, 2003), lean theory (McManus &

Millard, 2002), and lean manufacturing (Womack & Jones, 1996), are hereafter referred to as

lean principles.

Per Gabor (1992), Deming is considered the father of the modern quality movement.

According to her book, The Man Who Discovered Quality, the impact of Demings contributions

on quality theory has been profound. His theory of management for improvement of quality,

productivity, and competitive position (Deming, 1982, p. 19), is applied across all industries

and is the model for organizations that have a desire to implement quality improvements. During
 23

the rebuilding of the Japanese economy after World War II, Deming was asked to speak with

Japanese manufacturing executives on ways to improve product quality. Demings ideas about

quality and productivity in the early 1950s were favorably received in Japan. Deming convinced

the Japanese business community that it is always cheaper to do the job right the first time than

to allow defects to enter the production line. Deming summarized the essence of his philosophy

of quality management into 14 points, which, when applied accordingly, are known to improve

the quality of manufacturing processes. The underlying philosophy of the 14 points remains the

same since they were first introduced in February 1985, but Deming constantly improved the 14

points to reflect knowledge gained from his private consulting and management seminars

(Scherkenbach, 1991). Demings (1982) 14-point management model consists of the following:

1. Create constancy of purpose and continual improvement while long-term planning

must replace short-term reaction.

2. Introduce management as well as workers to the Japanese production theory.

3. Do not depend on quality inspectionbuild quality into the product and process.

4. Choose quality suppliers over low-cost suppliers in order to minimize variation in raw

material and supply.

5. Improve constantly to reduce variation in all aspects of production.

6. Train workers and management on the job in order to reduce variation in how a job is

done.

7. Institute leadership across the organization.

8. Eliminate fear while encouraging two-way communication; encourage employees to

work in the organizations interest.

9. Break down internal barriers so that departments in an organization become internal

 24

customers to each other and must work together.

10. Eliminate slogans (exhortations) on the job site.

11. Eliminate numerical targets; rather, manage by objective.

12. Remove barriers to worker satisfaction; instead include annual appraisals.

13. Encourage self-improvement and education for all workers.

14. Ensure that everyone is responsible for continual improvement in quality and

productivity, especially top management. (p. 56)

Shewhart (1980) focused on the importance of reducing variation in a manufacturing

process. Shewhart pursued his concept of quality control during the early part of the century,

according to Hounshell (1984) perhaps the golden age of mass production. Deming (1982),

credit Shewhart with the invention of the control chart model. Shewharts model combines

creative management thinking with statistics and establishes process stability as a valuable goal

that is directly related to the economics and quality of production (Shewhart, 1980). The

Shewhart variation model consists of the following three components: (a) a centerline, usually

equal to the mathematical average of all the samples plotted; (b) upper and lower statistical

control limits, which define the constraints of the variations; and (c) performance data plotted

over time associated with quality patterns. Shewhart (1980) viewed statistical control as a unique

approach to assuring quality:

By the elimination of assignable causes of variability we make the most efficient use of

raw materials, maximize the assurance of the quality of the manufactured product,

minimize the cost of inspection, and minimize loss from rejections. Statistics in mass

production can be made to pay good dividends, and has a bright future. (p. 47)

Juran (1998) came to be known for his trilogy diagram, a method devised to measure for
 25

quality accurately. His trilogy diagram consisted of three processes: Quality Planning, Quality

Control, and Quality Improvement. Jurans trilogy diagram placed emphasis on the importance

of creating customer value and reducing waste during production. Juran defined customers as

internal and external. Internal customers are part of the organization and are impacted by peers

activities. External customers are not part of the organization but are impacted by organizational

activities (Juran, 1988). Juran further contributed to the development of quality theory by stating

that quality theory has universal applicability, for example: (a) in service industries as well as in

manufacturing industries, (b) in business processes as well as in manufacturing processes, and

(c) in support operations as well as production operations. Jurans contributions to quality theory

affirmed that quality in production is associated with an additional cost aspect, adding about 10%

to the workload of the management teams overseeing quality improvements.

According to Crosby (1985), the performance standard is zero defects, rather than

acceptable quality level. He also made an argument that quality is a cultural revolution taking

placeone that moves the whole company from the conventional culture to a culture in which

quality is first among equals with cost and schedule (p. 164). According to Crosby:

A cultural change regarding quality must be carefully planned to ensure that everyone in

the company understands and has an opportunity to participate in this new way of doing

business. The plan must also provide for actions that move the whole company from the

conventional culture to a culture in which quality is first among equals with cost and

schedule. This overall plan, or strategy, is vital to quality improvement. (p. 163)

Feigenbaum (1951) formalized the concept of Total Quality Control and provided the

first delimitation of quality in modern literature. Feigenbaum (1991) defined quality as the total

composite product and service characteristics of marketing, engineering, manufacture, and

 26

maintenance through which the product and service in use will meet the expectations o f the

customer (p. 7). Feigenbaum was the first to publish total quality control concepts.

Feigenbaums 10 principles of quality are:

1. Quality is the responsibility of everyone in the organization.

2. Quality is what the customer expects to receive.

3. Quality and cost are a sum, not a difference.

4. Quality requires both individuals and teams to work together.

5. Quality is a way of managing the behavior of employees.

6. Quality and innovation are mutually dependent.

7. Quality is the right thing.

8. Quality requires continuous improvement never ending process.

9. Quality is the most cost effective, least capital intensive route to productivity.

10. Quality is implemented with a total system connected with customers and suppliers.

Taguchi (1986) is regarded as the father of Japanese quality engineering. He strongly

believes that quality should be designed into the product and not inspected into it (Ross, 1996).

Taguchi claims quality losses as a result of product variation can be modeled and predicted

through a quadratic function (Evans & Lindsay, 2005). Taguchis three quality concepts or three-

phased approach includes:

1. System designQuality should be designed into a product, not inspected into it.

2. Parameter designQuality is best achieved by minimizing deviations from a target.

3. Tolerance designCost of quality should be measured as a function of deviation

from the midpoint of the specification or tolerance limits; any losses should be

measured system wide.

 27

Leadership

The term known as leadership has been around since the early 1800s, first appearing in

text covering British Parliaments political influence and power throughout the first half of the

19th century (Uma & Glenice, 2006). Leadership refers to leaders who are influential and inspire

others to act. It is essential that organizations have the right leadership in place, as research

derived from a variety of fields has concluded that leadership matters. According to Shelton

(2009), leadership can be the single most impactful contributor to the success or failure of an

organization. To define further leadership, Northouse (2008) provides the following quote:

Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a

common goal (p. 3).

According to research, leadership is essential and the right leadership is necessary to help

organizations grow and succeed. However, leadership is not the same across organizations.

Organizations that are contemplating transforming to a lean environment require the right

leadership in order to have a successful implementation (Conca, Llopis, & Tar, 2004; Lucey,

2008; Mann, 2009). The right leadership is necessary because implementing lean thinking into

an organization requires total commitment of executive leadership to be able to make the

necessary organizational and cultural changes within the company (Womack & Jones, 1996). A

careful plan and strategy is required from leadership in order for companies to implement lean

thinking. According to Luecke (2003), the transformation into lean thinking brings significant

change to corporate culture, change that necessitates strong project leadership, visible support

from top management, and patience. Resolving issues that arise within organizations is the

responsibility of its senior leadership. It requires leaders to be nimble and to improvise and

execute solutions in a short timeframe. Weick and Quinn (1999) believe that the right leadership
 28

can support continuous change by allowing an organization to stay relevant and react quickly to

disturbances. In order to react quickly, according to a study performed by Bass (1990),

leaderships needs to reduce roadblocks and empower employees to be able to execute and

implement positive change in the organization.

It is important for leadership to support lean implementation because, as Kotter &

Rathgeber (2006) point out, if an organization wants to stay in business, it will need to create a

lean shop. Creating a lean shop requires strong, top-down leadership, especially at the beginning

of the process (Womack et al., 1990). Based on the literature, commitment from top-down

leadership is required because the role of the leadership team changes dramatically in lean

companies and ultimately the management teams leadership behaviors are of importance to the

eventual success of the transformation (Womack et al., 1990; Womack & Jones, 1996). The

transition to lean can be a difficult transition and there is growing support in lean and other

continuous-improvement philosophies that leadership is needed to support lean implementation

(Lucey, 2008; Mann, 2009).

Lean manufacturing requires companies to change their traditional management styles

and organizational structures, while changing the role of workers into continuous improvement

agents (Liker, 1997). Heifetz and Linsky (2002) declared that leadership inspires people to

change, raise challenging questions, and forces people to evaluate their values, assumptions, and

norms. As leaders, every day you have the chance to make a difference in the lives of people

around you (p. 2).

Avolio and Bass (2002) investigated different leadership styles and their impact on

organizations; they argued that transformational leadership is superior to transactional leadership

to improve continuously organizations. This approach of leadership theory is known as

 29

transformation leadership, which requires leaders who act in a visionary and inspirational

capacity (Bass, 1998; Burns, 1978). Transformational leadership as a theoretical model came

into prominence with Burnss (1978) book, Leadership. In his book, Burns (1978) developed the

concept of transformational leadership; he saw leadership not in isolation but in relationships. He

depicted transformational leadership as an engagement between a leader and a follower based on

an increased level of motivation and morality (Stewart, 2006). Bass (1985) further developed the

transformational-leadership theory in studying the military and industry. Bass (1985) described

four leadership components grounded in moral foundations, which characterize transformation

leadership: (a) idealized influence and charisma with strong role models with high ethics; (b)

inspirational motivation, including having a high team spirit and shared vision; (c) intellectual

stimulation that can encourage problem solving and creativity; and (d) individualized

consideration with supportive climate and use of delegation.

Lean transformations as well as other organizational changes that fail are often attributed

to the leaders inability to convey the business, strategic, organizational, and cultural components

of the change or system (Kotter, 1999; Schein, 1992, 1999; Womack & Jones, 1996). Having the

correct selection is critical to success of the company. According to research, there is a critical

transition as organizations move through lean transformation, a point when leaders must become

coaches and employees become proactive. Leaders must be successful during this phase, as the

success of the lean transformation will often determine the corporations ultimate financial

success. Leaders who are leading lean transformations are responsible for the companys future

viability when thrust into the role of organizational change agents. Leaders must provide the

platform for workers to challenge continually the way the job is being done and look for ways to

improve efficiency (Liker, 2004).

 30

In order to create the foundation for lean manufacturing, a significant organizational and

cultural change must occur within the company (Ohno, 1988; Womack & Jones, 1996). Kotter

(1999) asserted that managers organize and control, whereas leaders motivate and inspire. Per

the literature review, leaders with a transformational leadership style are needed to implement

lean manufacturing because they possess the qualities needed to transform the companys culture

and facilitateadherence and belief in these lean principals (Womack & Jones, 1996; Womack et

al., 1990). Transformational leadership style is preferred to deal with a continuously changing

economic environment. According to Bass & Avolio (1993), transformational leaders change

organizational cultures by empowering the people who are doing the work (Ohno, 1988). This is

accomplished by developing a learning organization based on a culture that values empowering

the individual to excel and grow as well as improve the organizations effectiveness (Womack &

Jones, 1996).

Achanga, Shehab, Roy and Nelder (2006) argued that leadership plays a significant part

in implementing lean, and discussed the need for a supportive organizational culture to

implement lean. Schein (1992) proposes that the links among organizational change, leadership,

and culture are vital. In Scheins book Organizational Culture and Leadership he proposes,

Planned change cannot be understood without considering culture (p. xiv). In order to adapt to

an ever-changing environment, Duque and Cadavid (2007) argued that a companys leaders

influence its culture, and therefore, implementing a lean culture is dependent on the companys

leadership support. According to Schein (1997), The bottom line for leaders is that if they do

not become conscious of the cultures in which they are embedded, those cultures will manage

them (p. 375). The connection between leadership and the success of lean implementation
 31

appears to be important in implementing a lean supportive culture (Kaye & Anderson, 1999;

Macey & Schneider, 2008).

Key Elements of Lean Implementation

This study will assess the relationship between organizational culture and lean thinking

implementation. The elements used to assess organizational culture type will be from the

competing values framework: clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, market. The elements to assess lean

implementation are support, utilization, and infrastructure.

A key element of lean is support. This element is essential to successful lean

implementation and it pertains to the involvement of top executives of an organization. Based on

National Science Foundation research, evidence was found that management support does play a

key role in driving lean implementation (Worley & Doolen, 2006). Based on this research it is

more effective to have Top executives and managers push down for lean improvements.

According to Schutta (2006), having management involvement that communicates and

demonstrates commitment to lean implementation increases the chances of success. Beer (2003)

researched and concluded that leadership influences leans success or failure by taking action.

The result of this study is important to the concept of lean support, because one of the

fundamental tenets of leas in management support. According to Beer (2003) this involves

managers that make decisions that support training throughout the organization, are aligned with

the initiative, and create a climate of transparent communication about the implementation

process. In addition, management must provide a business process involving planning and

strategic thinking (Schutta, 2006). Furthermore, it is a cultural change which supports the idea of

businesses focusing on the customer, key processes, and steps to continuously deliver a product

that satisfies existing and new customers. In his research Schutta (2006) identified that leadership
 32

must assemble key business indicators with the purpose to monitor organization performance and

to help them determine the status of the processes, as well as customer satisfaction, and the

overall operational performance of the organization. This agrees with the argument that Basu and

Wright (2003) make that leadership must demonstrate involvement in the lean initiative through

expectation of results, performance, and recognition.

Another key element of lean is utilization, which includes utilizing the appropriate lean

tools to improve effectively productivity in the organization. Lean tools are utilized in categories

separated by general purpose: quality-continuous improvement tools, lean-process tools, and

support-system tools. The implementation of lean tools is helpful with the expectation that the

organization will develop a better understanding of the underlying principles of lean as its

members utilize the tools. Lean tools are not the sole solution to transform the organization; an

understanding of lean principles is required; otherwise, there is a risk of implementing tools and

practices that do not fit the organizational context. However, those organizations that have

gained the most embrace the lean principles rather than just the tools and techniques that are used

at Toyota (Liker, 2004; Standard & Davis, 1999).

A third key component of lean is having an infrastructure that utilizes subject matter

experts to mentor, train, and facilitate lean events. The concept of using a Kaizen (continuous

improvement) expert is at the heart of the lean implementation process. Imai (1986) generalized

Ohnos thinking to all of Japan and explained, Kaizen is the single most important concept in

Japanese management-the key to Japanese competitive success (p. xxix). Kaizen is at the heart

of the lean implementation process, challenging the status quo in the context of long-term, stable

relationships. The term kaizen means to make it better, but in English, the word has become a

verb meaning to take a process or a product (service) or a design, and using the power of internal
 33

experts, the people on the shop floor, and those in the design room, to make something

measurably better. To kaizen, a process requires much planning, concentration, and focus until

the job is done (Moody, 1997). Kaizen is the belief that many incremental acts of development

will accumulate into a substantial gain that stands in contrast to Business Process Reengineering

is concerned with an elaborate fundamental organizational redesign. The kaizen process starts

with the process owner, which normally is a person in command, but depends on broad

multifunctional team participation. Kaizen process is not common across all best practice but it is

a way of developing the lean tools and techniques that are uniquely appropriate for a specific

situation, given its particular core strengths and competitive advantage (Allen, 2001).

The infrastructure of kaizen experts, the use of tools that provide graphical and statistical

analysis, and the strong support from senior management are lean fundamental components that

must be in place. Effective utilizing these three componentssupport, utilization, and

infrastructureare critical to the success of a lean initiative (Breyfogle et al., 2001). This study

involved an assessment of the relationship of organizational cultural characteristics (clan,

adhocracy, hierarchy, market) with each of these three key lean elements (support, utilization,

and infrastructure).

Organizational Culture

It is essential that leaders understand the significance of organizational culture as an asset

as they implement an organizational initiative. Treating organization culture as an asset eases

communication, facilitates organizational decision making and control, and possibly generates

higher levels of cooperation and commitment (Whitfield & Landeros, 2006). Organizations that

integrate organizational culture theory and assessment into their strategic planning processes

have successfully increased their effectiveness and have achieved better results in market share,
 34

sales growth, profitability, innovation, employee engagement, and customer satisfaction (Baker,

2006; Cameron & Quinn, 1999). Researchers agree that there has been an abundant amount of

research conducted on the subject of organizational culture (Sims, 2000).

Organizational culture has been studied for more than 50 years (Dadzie, Winston &

Dadzie, 2012). The topic has grown in popularity, starting with a handful or articles published

prior to 1990. However, in the late 1990s, there was an explosion of interest on the subject of

organization culture among scholars generating thousands of articles. Hartnell, Ou, and Kinicki

(2011) noted that more than 4,600 articles have examined organizational culture since the late

1990s. It is likely that interest in organizational culture is based on its recognition as a factor in

organizational effectiveness (Schaeder, Tears, & Jordan, 2005).

Organizational management researchers have attempted to establish a single operational

definition for organizational culture. However, their attempts resulted in the development of

multiple definitions. According to the literature review there are not many concepts in

organizational theory that have as many different definitions as that of organizational culture. As

Tierney (1981) stated, Widely varying definitions, research methods, and standards for

understanding culture create confusion as often as they provide insight (p. 2).

Ouchis (1981) described organization culture as an organizations operating philosophy.

Martin and Siehl (1983) suggested that organizational culture is the glue that holds individuals in

an organization together and might lead to positive business outcomes. Gordon (1991) described

11 dimensions of culture, including clarity and direction, encouragement of individual initiative,

conflict resolution, performance clarity, performance emphasis, action orientation, and human

resource development. According to Gordon (1991) organizational culture is a set of processes

that binds together members of an organization based on a shared pattern of beliefs. Schein
 35

(1988) provides a definition for organizational culture as the total sum of all the shared

assumptions that an organization has learned during its history. Tierney (1981) defined

organizational culture as the study of particular webs of significance within an organizational

settingthat is, [to] look at an organization as a traditional anthropologist would study a

particular village or clan (p. 4).

Gordon (1991) described organizational culture as an organization-specific system of

widely shared assumptions, values and ideas that result in typical behavior patterns. Kotter, and

Heskett (1992) defined organizational culture as a system that consists of two levels, and each

level being different in its visibility and in its resistance to change. Examining each level more

closely it reveals the values that the members of the group share. These values are less visible yet

are persistent even if the membership of the group changes over time. Denison and Mishra

(1995) defined the term organizational culture as those sets of beliefs and assumptions that drive

or shape behavior in organizations. Schein (1999) viewed organizational culture as operating at

three levels: assumptions, values, and artifacts. First artifacts consist of behaviors that are visible

and consisting with organizational structures and external manifestations of culture. Artifacts are

the most superficial and easiest to change. These layers vary on a continuum ranging from

superficial to deep. Cameron and Quinn (1999) identified two dimensions of organizational

culture: content dimension and pattern dimension. Content dimension refers to those components

of an organizations culture that help each organizational member recognize and understand the

organizations values. Pattern dimensions refer to those aspects that serve as a profile of an

organizations culture and that can be determined by a cultural assessment instrument.

Hodgetts and Luthans (2003) defined culture as a system of common values, beliefs, and

assumptions that people across the organization share. Some of the characteristics of
 36

organizational culture, as Hodgetts and Luthans identified, are: (a) the way in which work gets

done, (b) the levels of cooperation between employees and management, (c) the relationships

that employees have with each other, (d) common behavioral rules, (e) language, and (f) formal

procedures. Hodgetts and Luthanss work was intended to help employees understand the

concept of culture, defining these different elements to make it more specific and tangible.

According to Schein (2004), the culture of a group can be defined as:

A pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned by a group as it solved its

problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to

be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to

perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. (p. 17)

According to Bolman and Deal (2008), Culture forms the superglue that bonds an

organization, unites people, and helps an enterprise accomplish desired ends (p. 253). Likewise,

Hofstede (2001) stated that organizational culture constitutes a social environment members

psychological or collective programming , and that organizational culture is what distinguishes

that group from others. Similarly, Shekari, Rahmdel, and Rajabian (2012) presented a holistic

view of organizational culture in which they described culture as the sum of the various

traditions, beliefs, common expectations, mode of dress, interactions, decisions, policies, and

procedures that make up the organization.

Determining an individual organizations culture is a complex task that requires defining

the organization, identifying its values, determining how it operates, and recognizing how it is

viewed internally and externally (Atkins & Turner, 2006). One of the most common themes in

definitions of organizational culture is the organization members shared values and beliefs and

these values are used to make decisions in the performance of duties (Lamond, 2003). Values are
 37

the fundamental concepts and beliefs that identify standards of success within an organization.

Organizational culture is a key theoretical construct that helps researchers better understand

organizations and their performance outcomes (Delobbe, Haccoun, & Vandenberghe, 2002).

Organizational culture has been shown to affect employee turnover (Baker, 2006); innovation

(Schein, 1983); personal involvement, self-confidence, and ethical behavior (Deal & Kennedy,

1999); strategic involvement (Carney, 2006); and commitment to the organization (Kotter &

Heskett, 1992), and can, in turn, influence an organizations bottom line. Denison (1984)

believed culture played a key role in shaping an organizations activities, an asset that could be

leveraged to increase a firms financial performance.

Schein (2010) best summarizes how organizational culture will be defined for this study:

A pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its problems of

external adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be

considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to

perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. (p. 17)

Schein indicated that no one culture is more correct or more acceptable than an other culture and

that cultures grow out of three sources: (1) the beliefs, values, and assumptions of founders of

organizations; (2) the learning experiences of group members as their organization evolves; and

(3) new beliefs, values, and assumptions brought in by new members and new leaders (p. 219).

Competing Values Framework

Organizations are complex and have many values they want to satisfy, which might each

be worthy but cannot all be satisfied at the same time or to the same extent. To address this

problem Quinn (1988) developed this concept into a theory called Competing Values Framework

(CVF). The framework was originally developed in the 1980s and has since been rigorously
 38

tested (La Belle, 2010; Quinn & Cameron, 1983).

It is important to assess an organizations culture. Doing so can be challenging, as several

factors might influence that culture. The competing values create tension within the organization.

One manifestation of competing values for employees is stress. Babcock (2003) stated:

Fatigue, irritability, difficulty in concentrating, difficulty in sleeping, upset stomach, low

morale, and lack of job satisfaction are all signals of stress in the

workplace.Characteristics of low-stress, high-productivity facilities

includemanagement actions that are consistent with organizational values. (p. 59)

This framework suggests that the ability of managers to perform well is based on how they use

these different and conflicting sets of skills: boundary spanning, human relations, coordinating,

and directing skills (Babcock, 2003).

The competing values framework continues to be used to describe all levels of the

organization while assisting managers with examining the role of different levels of

organizational hierarchy and its the model that has been chosen for this study. Quinn and

Rohrbaugh (1983) first proposed the Competing Values Framework during their organizational

effectiveness study. The competing values model Quinn developed is an analytic framework

built around two dimensions, forming four quadrants that represent competing orientations or

values in the organizational context (Edwards, Yankey, & Altpeter, 2001). Cameron et al. (2006)

believe that the Competing Values Framework taps into fundamental organizing frameworks

people use when they draw inferences about the world. Cameron et al. (2006) believed the

congruence of frameworks occurs because people are similar in their deeply rooted

psychological processes.

The competing values model developed is an analytic framework built around two
 39

dimensions forming four quadrants representing competing orientations or values in the

organizational context (Cameron et al., 2006). Denison and Spreitzer (1991) stated the horizontal

dimensions or x-axis portrays the conflicting demands,

created by the internal organization and the external environment. One end of the axis

represents a focus on integration and buffering to sustain the existing organization, while

the other represents a focus on competition, adaptation, and interaction with the

environment. (p. 5)

According to Cameron and Quinn (1999), organizations focusing externally tend to be

concerned with the market, new customers, and competitors as opposed to organizations with an

internal focus, which tend to be concerned with employee morale and the way work is

accomplished. This dimension consists of a spectrum that ranges from flexibility and versatility

at the one end to consistency and durability at the other.

The vertical dimension constitutes the organizations flexibility in dealing with issues

while the horizontal dimension deals with the organizations internal focus (Edwards et al.,

2001). The y-axis assesses the choice between flexibility and control. One end of the dimension

reflects an emphasis on flexibility and spontaneity, whereas the other represents a

complementary focus on stability, control, and order (Denison & Spreitzer, 1991, p. 4).

Cameron et al. (2006) argued that organizations, such as Google and Hewlett-Packard, that are

associated with harmonious internal characteristics. These characteristics are in contrast to

organizations that focus on challenging and competing with rivals, such as Toyota. From one

extreme to the next the dimension consists of a continuum that ranges from having internal

cohesion at the one end to independence at the other.

The Competing Values Framework is categorized into four quadrants with two
 40

dimensions (Cameron et al., 2006). One dimension differentiates effectiveness criteria that

emphasize flexibility, discretion, and dynamism from stability, order, and control. The other

dimension differentiates effectiveness criteria that emphasize an internal orientation, integration,

and unity from external orientation, differentiation, and rivalry. Together, these four quadrants

each represent a distinct set of organizational effectiveness indicators. Cameron and Quinn

(2011) believe these quadrants explore the artifacts and espoused value dimensions of Scheins

(2004) model. Cameron and Quinn (2011) termed theses four types of organizations Clan,

Adhocracy, Hierarchy, and Market (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Competing values framework. From Diagnosing and changing organizationalculture:

Based on the competing values framework (3rd ed.; p. 35), by Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E.
(2011). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Clan culture defined as shared values and goals, cohesion, participativeness,

individuality, and a sense of we-ness [in which] the organization places a premium on

teamwork, participation, and consensus (Cameron et al., 2006, p. 43). According to the
 41

literature review the clan culture has been acknowledged for its encouragement of trust-based

practices with emphasis on flexibility and cohesion. According to Cameron and Quinn (1999),

clan leaders are visionaries who inspire and motivate organization members by ensuring they

share values and objectives. Clan cultures promote cohesion, a family-type environment, and a

group similarity. Customers are thought of as partners, the organization is in the business of

developing a humane work environment, and managers roles are to empower employees and

facilitate their commitment and loyalty (Cameron et al., 2006). There is a sense of togetherness

along with an encouragement for teamwork and participation in this cultural type. According to

Cameron and Quinn (1999), the clan culture focuses on internal maintenance with flexibility,

concern for people, and sensitivity to customers. The strategic emphasis in clan culture type is

toward developing human capital, commitment, and morale. These type organizations define

success by the internal climate and the concern for the organizations members (Cameron et al.,

2006). Fong and Kwok (2009) found clan culture to be critical to the success of knowledge

management at project and organizational levels. Cameron et al. (2006) found organizations with

clan cultures to have high employee commitment and improved communication.

Adhocracy culture, is characterized by a dynamic, entrepreneurial, and creative work

place [in which] people stick their necks out and take risks (Cameron et al., 2006, p. 45.) The

adhocracy culture concentrates on external positioning with a high degree of flexibility and

individuality. This culture is geared toward innovation, risk taking, and individuality. Leaders

within the adhocracy culture break rules in order to adapt quickly to new opportunities. The

culture is flexible, focuses on competitive positioning, and is most responsive to accelerating and

changing conditions outside the enterprise; thus, the emphasis is on risk-taking, experimentation,

and dynamism. Cameron and Quinn (2011) stated that adhocracy cultures are often found in
 42

most start-ups and entrepreneurial ventures, and research and consulting organizations.

Hierarchy culture is defined as large numbers of standardized procedures, multiple

hierarchy levels, and emphasis on rule reinforcement (Cameron et al., 2006, p. 38). Hierarchy

cultures are characterized by a controlling environment and adherence to order, formal rules, and

policies for the maintenance of organizational stability. In this culture, it is important to have

clear, standardized lines of communication in production efforts. Strongly hierarchical

organizations value the efficiencies found by ideas such as the efficient assembly line or supply

chain. Under this culture leadership strategies are more focus on improving the quality of

processes by reducing variation and consistency of outcomes and having a leadership style with

characteristics of organizing and monitoring. According to Cameron and Quinn (1999) hierarchy

cultures stresses efficiency, by having policies and procedures that are the nucleus that united

force of the organization. These organizations put an emphasis on value and obtaining results by

increasing certainty and eliminating anything that causes variation on the outcome. Cameron et

al. (2006) stated that hierarchical organizations are good for markets that are tightly regulated

and do not change frequently, and in which organizations have to maintain standardized

procedures or uniform quality. A possible concern in this culture is that there may be inadequate

research and development, and solving problems is difficult in new situations as it requires a

paradigm shift. The emphasis is to continue executing by doing the things that have worked in

the past rather than on seizing new opportunities (Goodman, Zammuto, & Gifford, 2001). This

type of culture places overall emphasis on having a strategy that aims on stability, predictability,

and smooth operations.

Market culture is defined as driven by customer focus, premium returns on assets, and

improved corporate competitiveness [in which] leaders are hard-driving producers and
 43

competitors [and] the long-term concern is on competitive actions and achieving stretch goals

and targets (Cameron et al., 2006, p. 40). The basic assumptions in a market culture are that the

external environment is hostile rather than peaceful, consumers are interested in value, and the

organization must increase its position. Cameron et al. (2006) identify the mantra for this

quadrant as compete hard, move fast and play to win (p. 44). In this quadrant the emphasis is

on having strategies that are focused on producing short-term profitability for stakeholders, and

the leaders tend to be more aggressive and competitive. The primary objective of leaders in these

organizations is to increase results and profits and to place less focus on internal cohesion and

dynamics. Winning is seen as the only option in these cultures, and outpacing the competition is

a virtue. Obtaining prompt feedback from customers is the highest priority and the strategic

emphasis is towards making changes that will lead to competitive advantage and market

superiority (Goodman et al., 2001).

According to researchers the Competing Values Framework focuses squarely on

organizational culture attributes rather than organizational climate attributes. It assesses how

things are (Cameron et al., 2006, p. 147) in the organization rather than how individuals feel

about them (Cameron et al., 2006). The Competing Values Framework was originally developed

for use in educational organizations and is the basis for the Organizational Culture Assessment

Instrument (OCAI) (Cameron et al., 2006).

 44

To provide additional granularity the four cultural types are further defined by six

dimensions. The dimensions include characteristics associated with, leadership style,

organizational glue, organizational climate which is the existing work environment of the

organization, criteria of success, and management style. The dimension of dominant

characteristics refers to the core values of the organization, such as the degree of teamwork or

the commitment to goals. Organizational glue refers to the bonding mechanisms that hold an

organization together, such as cohesion, commitment, and loyalty. Organizational climate

consists of the existing work environment of the organization. The dimension of management

style refers to how employees are treated and the degree of consultation or participation

(Cameron et al., 2006).

The tool that assesses the culture of an organization into these four quadrants is the OCAI

(Cameron et al., 2006). In the organizational culture literature, the most popular and widely

researched quantitative-based assessment instrument of culture is the OCAI. The OCAI is an

instrument for assessing organizational culture; it is designed to help identify the current culture

and the culture organization members believe should be developed to meet future needs

(Cameron & Quinn, 2011). The OCAI was developed to diagnose six key aspects of

organizational cultures (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). These subsystems are integrated by the

Competing Values Framework into the four theoretical culture types or archetypes of

organizational effectiveness. These groupings assess basic assumptions (dominant

characteristics, organizational glue); interaction patterns (leadership, management of employees);

and organizational direction, strategic emphases, criteria of success (Cameron et al., 2006). The

OCAI permits organizations to analyze easily their current and preferred culture types using the

main dimensions described above (Kimberly & Quinn, 1984).

 45

The OCAI was developed as an instrument to measure organizational culture by utilizing

a scenario approach that measures typologies of an organizational culture quantitatively and is

based on the Competing Values Framework. It is a framework that was empirically derived, has

been found to have both face and empirical validity, and helps integrate many of the dimensions

various authors have proposed (Cameron & Quinn, 2011, p. 54). The OCAI assesses how much

an organization reflects the values of each culture type by including six domains with four items

to be assessed within each domain. The typological instrument uses the ipsative method, in

which participants are asked to distribute a total number of points, usually 10 or 100, across a set

of given statements (Jung et al, 2009). Using the OCAI, these four factors provide the basis of

cultural classification within the workplace. Additionally, the OCAI allows predictions to be

made using the reciprocal opposition process, which in the context of this measure concerns the

factors diagonally opposite each other in Figure 1 (i.e., Clan and Market cultures, and Hierarchy

and Adhocracy cultures). Quinn and Spreitzer (1991) determined that the use of the scenario

approach resulted in fixed-choice data in which correlations were perfectly correlated with each

other. The measures were not suitable for correlation-based statistical analysis, such as

regression and factor analysis.

To arrive at the basis of the competing values framework, Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983)

analyzed a list of 39 indicators purported to be a comprehensive list of criteria for measurement

of organizational effectiveness. Through statistical analysis the list was consolidated into two

primary dimensions and four major clusters. As seen in Figure 1, the two competing dimensions

focused on control or flexibility and internal or external constituents. By crossing the two

dimensions, it was possible to designate four quadrants, which correlated to four organizational

cultures (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Howard, 1998). While the culture types appeared to be linked
 46

to a designated constituent group, Quinns theory premised each of the cultures existed within all

organizations. Since organizations differed in their values, based upon the industry in which they

operated or the relative age of the organization, the dominant values shifted dependent on factors

that influenced the organizational culture (Howard, 1998). Organizations tend to have none or

more than one characteristic, for example it is common for an organization to be characterized by

having no specific dominant culture type or by having multiple dominant culture types (Quinn &

Spreitzer, 1991).

The aerospace industry operates in global economies with pressures and treats coming

from different areas and subsequently based on the challenge must operate in each of the four

quadrants, in order to adapt to the challenges and be able to continue to survive. There are

situations that having strong values of the group dimension such as being able to provide team

support and encourage participatory decision making will allow leaders to be more effective and

maintain or improve productivity. According to Quinn (1988) it is normal to have tension

between the demands of each of the four cultures in fact it is instrumental to an organizations

effectiveness as opposed to simply mastering just one of the dimensions. An organization that is

aware of the importance of having a balance between the dimensions will be in a better position

to respond to a wide variety of environmental conditions.

The Competing Values Framework and OCAI were selected for use in this study based

upon the comprehensive review of the literature. According to Yu and Wu (2009), The

Competing Values Framework is one of the most influential and extensively used models in the

area of organizational culture research (p. 37). Numerous studies were conducted to test the

validity of the Competing Values Framework model. Validation was performed based on a

Likert-scale instrument, Q-sort methodology, and structural equation modeling and found the
 47

model to be valid (Kwan & Walker, 2004). While there were a significant number of models and

scales for measurement of organizational culture. When compared with each other the

Competing Values Framework provided empirical validity in ample research and broad

organizational applications with fewer dimensions. The combination of validity and a

quantitative method to measure organizational culture and culture change was the best fit for this

study. According to Cameron and Quinn (2011):

The OCAI is designed to help identify an organizations current culture or the culture that

exists today.The same instrument helps identify the culture that organization members

believe should be developed to match future demands of the environment and the

opportunities to be faced by the organization in the coming five years. (pp. 2324)

Relationship Between Quality Initiatives and Organizational Culture

Creating a lean workplace requires changing the corporate culture. Lean thinking

incorporates the best aspects of flexibility, quality, and low price and it brings significant change

to corporate culture, change that necessitates strong project leadership, visible support from top

management, and patience Bhasin and Burcher (2006), Gander (2009), and Mann (2009) argued

that a certain culture is necessary to implement lean practices; more specifically, a culture in

which all employees are engaged in continuous improvement. Cameron and Quinn (1999) found

in their research that total quality management and organizational culture are closely intertwined,

and that the success of the quality initiative is dependent on having the improvement strategies

embedded in a cultural change (p. 30). Lean success is defined as the existence of a kaizen

culture (kaizen means make better) in which lean tools are effectively applied, by enthusiastic

employees, to eliminate waste every day (Roper, 2005). Roper wrote:

 48

If this is true, then many organizations should probably quit their Lean programs now, as

they will never succeed by this definition. There is no roadmap for achieving a kaizen

culture, and left to their own device, most organizations will run out of time and patience

before they discover the path. (p. 3)

Chang and Weibe (1996) performed a study using the Competing Values Framework.

The researchers analyzed the relationship if any between organizational culture and lean

implementation. The research used data gathered from Total Quality Management Center by

surveying 122 participants. The objective of the study was to determine if there is an ideal

culture for quality management. The findings of the study showed that the ideal culture to

successfully implement a quality management initiative is in a culture that has characteristics

associated with a climate of trust, strong support, and the fostering of creativity.

Another study was performed by Shortell, Levin, Obrien, and Hughes (1995) utilizing the

Competing Values Framework to determine the relationship between organizational culture and

quality improvement. The results of this study showed that the types of organizational cultures

that are more conducive to implementing a successful quality management initiative are the

group and developmental cultures.

Al-khalifa and Aspinwall (2000) also utilized the Competing Values Framework to

understand the relationship between an organizations culture and TQM implementation.

According to the researchers, understanding the relationship between the organizations culture

and the lean thinking can provide insight into how to approach lean implementation. A

questionnaire using was given to 72 quality professionals, and based on the results, covariance

analysis was applied to analyze the dependent variables. The findings indicated that the

characteristics of the clan culture and the developmental culture were best suited for lean
 49

implementation. The authors emphasize that the Competing Values Framework is a useful tool to

drive desired changes in order to reach the desired quality culture.

Tang, Kim, and ODonald (2000) developed a Japanese organizational culture scale or

JOCS based on theory and suggested research in the literature (p. 1). JOCS surveyed 300 U.S.

and Japanese employees. Based on the JOCS results, the authors argued that a strong

organizational culture can be a competitive advantage, and that their study investigated the

shared beliefs and values between Japanese mother companies and the Japanese-U.S.owned

plant, and compare that to a U.S.-owned plant.

Detert, Schroeder, and Mauriel (2000) looked at culture as it relates to the

implementation of improvement initiatives in organizations, with contingency theory,

articulating that there is no best way for a company to adjust to its environment. They used other

researchers instruments for measuring culture, such as the Competing Values Framework

(Cameron & Freeman, 1991) or the Organizational Culture Profile and then discussed how

various cultural profiles relate to TQM. The authors then extracted from their literature study

eight dimensions of culture in a proposed model of TQM values and beliefs. They used Scheins

model of culture and focused on the value level of culture; they linked these eight cultural

constructs to a set of values and beliefs, which they argued are the foundation of successful TQM

adaption. These researchers argued that change initiative researchers have, in general, focused on

the implementation of visible and tangible artifacts or practices, as in the case of appropriate lean

practices, and that the cultural level of values and beliefs need to be paid more attention,

otherwise, change initiatives such as TQM will be difficult to implement in the organization.

Davies and Kochhar (2002) pointed out in their literature study, the difficulties practitioners face

implementing lean practices; difficulties that lead to a low success rate in implementing lean.
 50

Bhuiyan and Baghel (2005) defined continuous improvement as a culture of sustained

improvement targeting the elimination of waste (p. 761). It is a culture where everyone knows

the importance of the engagement of all employees in the continuous improvement process. This

type of culture fosters continuous improvement and encourages evolutionary improvements,

which result in revolutionary results that may take place over time.

Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Park (2006) conducted a qualitative literature-research study

on lean production and company culture with a comparative analysis combined with a Danish

case study to discover the differences lean production and six sigma. They reported the

importance of building the right culture in order to be successful in implementing a lean

philosophy. They also came to the conclusion that lean production and and six sigma came from

TQM and are essentially the same. The authors also argued that to build a proper culture to

support lean implementation, its needs a strategy aimed at satisfying both mental and spiritual

needs of the people in the organization.

Huehn-Brown and Murray (2010) surveyed the impact of continuous improvement and

culture in automotive suppliers. The researchers focused on understand the impact of continuous

improvement in leadership, learning, and collaboration. The findings of the study showed that

only 30% of the researched companies used lean or Six Sigma approaches and among the

companies there were significant inconsistencies in the implementation of lean throughout these

organizations. This research targeted employees at all levels of the organization to capture more

accurately the perception of all employees and not just managers or workers. Huehn-Brown and

Murray (2010) concluded in their study that there are many uncertainties on create a continuous

improvement supportive culture and all employees, including suppliers; need to be involved in

the lean initiative process.

 51

Bhasin and Burcher (2006) performed a detailed literature analysis. In their conclusion

they recommend implementation of five or more lean practices, viewed lean as long-term

continuos improvement, and made numerous cultural changes to embrace empowerment of

employees and to sponsor lean throughout the supply chain. They argued that the right culture is

needed to implement lean, and listed a total of 13 cultural values. This is one of the few articles

with a holistic approach to lean; the authors tried to combine lean practices with a lean culture

and promoted lean leadership without specifying this in more details.

Liker and Morgan (2006) abandoned the idea of implementing lean practices dependent

on patterns and opined that a true lean culture is more important than the lean tools and

techniques companies use. They described lean practices as short-term oriented and stated that

true lean companies need to be long-term lean enterprises (p. 5). They expanded the lean idea

beyond the manufacturing floor to lean supply-chain management, customer focus, faster

development cycles, better quality, and standardized processes in development.

Cheng and Liu (2007) performed a research utilizing the Competing Values Framework

to research and determine if there is any relationship between organizational culture and the

implementation of a quality management initiative. According to the researchers, appreciation

for the need to make appropriate culture changes in order to match TQM philosophy is important

to lean implementations success. From the results, Cheng and Liu (2007) found that the ideal

organization culture would have leadership with characteristics associated with a hierarchy

culture, management and employees associated with a clan culture, and with strategic emphasis

associated with an adhocracy culture. This verified Quinns (1988) argument that organizations

have values in all four cultures and it is normal to have more than one value system in order to be

successful.
 52

Duque and Cadavid (2007) developed a framework to implement lean using five

dimensions: elimination of waste, continuous improvement, continuous flow and pull system,

multifunctional teams, and information. They specified a number of suggestions: percentage of

suggestions implemented, percent scrap, and percent rework as measurements for continuous

improvement construct. They questioned which aspects of organizational culture were most

important to implement lean, hinting at the crucial need for a supportive organizational culture.

Macey and Schneider (2008) researched employee engagement in a recent literature-

research article. They concluded that the general consensus is that having engaged employees is

a desirable condition, that it may be a competitive advantage, and that it is difficult for

competitors to imitate a state of behaviorally engaged employees. The authors defined three

separate engagement elements: Trait engagement, state engagement, and behavioral engagement.

Macey and Schneider (2008) explained that trait engagement contains personality attributes,

suggesting employees need to experience work in positive, active, and energetic ways (p. 24),

going beyond what is necessary to achieve positive organizational outcomes. Macey and

Schneider further explicated that trait engagement is a cause for state engagement (feelings of

passion, energy, enthusiasm, and activation), which concerns the positive activity from trait

engagement with the job and work settings. They continued that organizational commitment and

job involvement are all parts of how individuals have invested themselves in the organization.

The third construct of EE is stated as behavioral engagement, which is broadly defined as

adaptive behavior (p. 24), where employees go beyond the status quo and initiate change to

adapt to the changing environment. Macey and Schneider clarified the notion that employee

empowerment is part of a state engagement construct; lean literature often recommends

empowered work teams, which these authors defined as part of the employee engagement
 53

construct. Macey and Schneiders that wider construct of employee engagement as a major

construct for lean culture. In addition, Macey and Schneider argued that transformational

leadership creates trust in employees and will lead to higher engagement and better performance.

Anand, Ward, Tatikonda, and Schilling, (2009) investigated the infrastructures needed in

companies to implement continuous improvement. These authors defined continuous

improvement as the base capability for lean and Six Sigma, defined continuous improvement

initiatives as a set of tools and techniques similar to lean practices, and defined organizational

learning as the underlying theory of continuous improvement. They used a qualitative method to

collect evidence, interviewing executives from five companies. Anand et al. defined the purpose

of the company, processes such as continuous improvement and standardization, and training of

their people as the infrastructural framework of their work. The authors pointed out that it is

important to create and sustain a culture of constant change, but in their research they only found

middle management focusing in these changes, whereas shop-floor workers were not involved.

All companies used a project-management approach to sustain their improvement efforts. This

research summarized the current state of continuous improvement, pointed out the importance of

the needed infrastructure to implement lean, and supported the notion that continuous

improvement is a basic condition for implementing lean.

The literature reveals that throughout the years many studies have been performed using

the Competing Values Framework to demonstrate a relationship between organizational culture

and lean implementation. Based on the cited studies, the Competing Values Framework has

been used widely by researchers and their results show a strong correlation between the

developmental and clan cultures that will support a successful lean implementation. In addition,

some of the studies analyzed the relationship between culture and total quality management,
 54

however, researches agree that similarities between lean and total quality management exists

(Flott, 2000). Therefore, this study will explore the relationship between lean implementation

and organizational culture and anticipates similar results.

According to Schmidt and Finnegan (1992), in most studies the organizations culture is

the dependent variable and quality management is often the independent variable. They came to

this conclusion in a study that found quality management practices are the premise to an

organizational culture characterized by empowerment, employee development, and teamwork.

The literature also reveals that there are contrasting perspectives on whether organization

culture drives lean implementation or lean implementation drives organizational culture. One

perspective that is covered in the literature is the premise that quality management practices

result by implementing cultural changes in the organization. Furthermore, according to Al-

khalifa and Aspinwell (2000), found out in his research that organizational culture is impacted

and often changes as result of the implementation of quality methodology or initiative. The

contrasting perspective is that organizational culture is required to be in place prior to

implementing quality management (Prajogo & McDermott, 2004).

There have been a number of studies that support the perspective that an organizations

culture will determine the success of a quality management initiative. Prajogo and McDermott

(2004) conducted an extensive analysis of the literature pertaining to the relationship between

organizational culture and TQM. After their review of the literature Prajogo and McDermott

(2004) designed a study based on the hypothesis that organizational culture will transform as

result of implementing a quality initiative and their results showed that TQM implementation

results in an organizational culture change. Bright and Cooper (1993) determined, based on the
 55

results of their study, that it is culture that influences how an organizations members interpret

and implement quality management practices.

Summary

The literature review reveals that lean is used across industries. Further, the connection

between leadership and the success of lean implementation appeared to be important in

implementing a lean supportive culture (Kaye & Anderson, 1999; Macey & Schneider, 2008). As

Preskill and Torres (1999) state, All too often, organizational leaders have not considered the

systems and structures that are needed to support employees involvement in teams (p. 23).

Transformational leadership will support a higher degree of lean practices applied in the

organization. The literature review concludes that leaders with a transformational leadership

style are needed to implement lean thinking in an organization. The literature review also

concludes that the leader of an organization has to support lean implementation and has to have

strong transformational-leadership traits. Sosik and Dionne (1997) proposed a correlation

between leadership styles and TQM.

The literature review also concludes that there is a significant correlation between lean

culture and continuous improvement initiatives. The literature reviewed established the

definitions and relevance of organizational culture and organizational change, including the

validation of the Competing Values Framework when researching the dimensions of

organizational culture. This study targeted the gaps in the literature regarding the role of

organizational culture change in effective lean implementation.

 56

Chapter 3: Methodology

The purpose of this chapter is to focus on the research design and methodology to study

the role that organizational culture has on successful lean implementation. This chapter discusses

the research methodology that the researcher plans to use, including the research questions and

hypotheses, the subjects that will participate on the study, the survey instrument that will be used

to capture the data that will be analyzed to provide results, as well as the validity and reliability

of the instrument. A description of the sample and the data analysis that will be utilized is

included. The studys limitations are also provided. This study focuses on the relationship of

organizational culture and elements of lean implementation as it relates to the successful

deployment of lean systems at a leading Fortune 500 corporation, which for the purposes of this

study is called the XYZ Aerospace Company.

Restatement of Research Questions

Two research questions have been created to examine the relationship between

organizational culture and key elements of lean implementation.

Research Question 1: What is the relationship between organizational culture type (clan,

adhocracy, hierarchy, or market) and the three lean implementation elements (support, utilization

and infrastructure)?

Null Hypothesis 1: The organizational culture type (clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, or

market) is not related to any of the three lean implementation elements (support, utilization, and

infrastructure).

Alternative Hypothesis 1: The organizational culture type (clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, or

market) is related to at least one of the three lean implementation elements (support, utilization,

and infrastructure).
 57

Research Question 2: What is the relationship between the two organizational culture

dimensions (flexibility versus control and internal versus external) and the three lean

implementation elements (support, utilization, and infrastructure)?

Null Hypothesis 2: Neither of the two organizational culture dimensions (flexibility

versus control and internal versus external) will be related to any of the three lean

implementation elements (support, utilization, and infrastructure).

Alternative Hypothesis 2: At least one of the two organizational culture dimensions

(flexibility versus control and internal versus external) will be related to at least one of the three

lean implementation elements (support, utilization, and infrastructure).

Description of the Research Methodology

This is a quantitative correlation study on the relationship between organizational culture

and the implementation of three key lean elements. A quantitative research methodology is a

reliable and repeatable research methodology that lends itself to accurate representation and

interpretation of the evidence. This study in nonexperimental in design because no random

assignment, control groups, or measures will be needed; this type of research does not require

changing or manipulation of the variables. This quantitative research was conducted using a

survey that was designed to address the research questions. Through the use of surveys,

researchers can gather data that can be analyzed through quantitative analysis. The survey was

given to more than 240 participants. A nonrandom convenient sample of professionals who work

in XYZs Defense Systems division was surveyed to measure their respective perceptions of

organizational culture and lean implementation. Kettner (2004) stressed that quantitative analysis

is extremely useful in identifying parameters and performance measures in relation to the topic.
 58

Design of the Study

According to Creswell (2007), an independent variable causes, influences, or affects

outcomes (p. 94). An independent variable is one that is fixedcontrolledand generally is

believed to have a degree of impact on a dependent variable (Creswell, 2009).This studys

independent variables are derived by using the Competing Values Framework to measure the

organizational culture type. The Competing Values Framework is an organizational culture

model that is based on extensive research on how an organization operates and the values that are

shared by the employees in relationship to the two cultural dimensions of flexibility-control and

internal-external orientation. The Competing Values framework consists of the cultural types of

clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, and market (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). To measure the independent

variables this study used a survey that participants completed by responding to 24 questions

(Appendix B), included in the surveys organizational culture section. These questions are based

on the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument. The scores from the Likert-type questions

were treated as interval data.

In this study the dependent variables are three elements that are involved with lean

implementation: support, utilization, and infrastructure. The independent variables of

organizational culture clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, or market were evaluated for

interrelationships. Each independent variable (Table 1) was interrelated to the dependent variable

as well as the combination of independent variables to the dependent variable. The dependent

variables are the key elements involved with lean implementation: support, utilization, and

infrastructure (Appendix C, Section 2). The scores for the dependent variables were calculated

from responses to a series of questions about how the respondents perceive their organizations in

the implementation of each of these components. The respondents ranked each question from a
 59

low of 1 to a high of 5, based on a scale where 1 signifies very low utilization of the lean

component and 5 signifying very high utilization.

Table 1.

Dependent and Independent Variables

Independent VariablesCulture Type Dependent Variables

1 Clan 1 Support

2 Adhocracy 2 Utilization

3 Market 3 Infrastructure

4 Hierarch

Population and Sample

Creswell (2007) noted that researchers get samples from the population in which are

ultimately interested. Aerospace employees were the people of interest for this study. The

sampling method was a stratified sampling with the sample being employees from an aerospace

company. Appendix D provides the e-mail message that was sent to employees of company

XYZ, and it described the survey, included a link to the electronic survey, and invited the sample

members to participate in the survey. This method ensures participation in the survey was strictly

voluntary.

XYZs Defense Systems division is made up of more than 80,000 employees located

throughout the United States. The sample for this study includes XYZs Defense Systems

division lean leaders, change agents, and lean practitioners who are actively leading and assisting

the transformation to a lean-manufacturing enterprise. These employees are located in 10 sites

throughout the United States. There are approximately 450 lean leaders and change agents at
 60

these 10 sites. The researcher anticipated 30% participation, which equates to 135 lean-

transformation leaders and change agents.

Instrumentation

Organizational culture is measured by using the OCAI. Appendix B contains the version

of the OCAI that was used in this study. Quinn and Spreitzer (1991) developed it to diagnose six

key dimensions of organizational culture, which are integrated by the Competing Values

Framework into the four cultural types of clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, and market (Cameron &

Quinn, 1999). Even though the OCAI is a public-domain document, permission was obtained to

use the instrument see appendix C.

The OCAI has been repeatedly tested for reliability. Several researchers have provided

evidence for adequate reliability and validity of the OCAI in measuring organizational culture as

well as its effectiveness in a variety of organizations (Cameron & Freeman, 1991; Cameron &

Quinn, 1999; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991). For instance, Quinn and Spreitzer (1991) reported a

Cronbachs alpha coefficient of greater than .70 for each culture type in a sample of 800

participants from 86 different public utility firms. Yeung, Brockbank, and Ulrich (1991) studied

more than 10,000 business executives and found a Cronbachs alpha coefficient close to .80.

Quinn and Spreitzer (1991) determined these results supported the reliability of the OCAI and

have consistently proven the ability to measure organizational culture.

The other instrument that was used in this study is a survey instrument that was pre-

evaluated by a pilot group consisting of 10 lean experts (four lean experts-trainers, two

managers, and four nonsupervisory engineers) to ensure clarity, comprehensiveness, and

acceptability (Aday & Cornelius, 2006). The pilot group was asked to review the proposed

survey and provide comments and suggestions for improvement. The pilot group validated the
 61

surveys clarity by ensuring that the questions flowed and were easy to complete before

administering to the larger population. The pilot group agreed to refine survey questions, to

provide feedback, and not to contribute directly to the data. The survey was modified according

to the suggestions received from the pilot group. A copy of the survey is included in Appendix

C.

Data-Gathering Procedures

Data collection started with an in-depth literature review, which is examined in Chapter 2

of the study. The literature helped to formulate the research questions and the guidelines for

participant selection. In general, there are several methods to acquire data (Aday & Cornelius,

2006; Fowler, 2009). For this dissertation, a web-based survey type was chosen, using

commercially available SurveyMonkey software. SurveyMonkey was chosen because, first, it

protects the participants anonymity and the link to the web-based survey can be sent to the exact

focus group (Aday & Cornelius, 2006). In this case, employees in XYZs Defense Systems

division were the participants in the survey. Second, the cost per unit is low for a web-based

survey, compared to a sending a printed survey to various companies (Fowler, 2009). Third, it

provides tracking capability, and convenience for the respondent is higher because there are no

constraints on when and where to answer the survey (the respondent must carry printed surveys

to be able to fill it out wherever and whenever he or she chooses). Fourth, the throughput time of

a web-based survey is dramatically lower than that of a paper-based version. The process of

printing and mailing does not apply to a web-based version. Finally, data can be exported easily

to other applications, and data collected during a web-based survey is directly accessible

electronically and can be further processed by any spreadsheet software (e.g., Microsoft Excel).
 62

To collect data for this study, two data collection instruments were provided to the

participants via web-based pages with multiple questions, as described above using

SurveryMonkey. One of the data collection instruments is the revised version of the OCAI

(Appendix B). Quinn and Spreitzer (1991) developed an instrument in which a Likert-scale

instrument was used to identify the four quadrants. Likert scales ask participants to indicate their

level of agreement or disagreement with a series of predefined statements. The OCAI for this

study is composed of 24 items with a 5-point Likert-like scale. The scale ranged from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with participants rating the extent to which they agree with each

statement. With the 5-point scale, scores range from 24 to 144, with a higher score indicating a

higher level of strength of that type of organizational culture.

The OCAI was supplemented by a second data collection instrument (Appendix C) that

measured the dependent variables, which are the key elements involved with lean

implementation, including support, infrastructure, and utilization. These dimensions were

developed into a series of 16 questions based on a 5-point Likert scale. The response options

ranged on a scale of 1 to 5, where if the respondent answers 1 it signifies that there is a low

utilization of the lean component and answering 5 signifies high utilization of the lean

component in that organization.

It is essential to maintain confidentiality throughout the research process (Creswell,

2007). Confidentiality was maintained in this study by not using the participants real names or

business names. The researcher will not share names of the participants with anyone. The

researcher removed names from any documents and the company names are concealed. Survey

data and analyses, including consent-related information, were stored on a removable computer

solid state drives to limit access, and are controlled by the researcher. All research data,
 63

including electronic survey results, will be stored for at least 1 year following publication of the

dissertation on a password-protected hard drive and locked in an undisclosed location and will be

destroyed after the required retention period but before 3 years following publication.

A database was created to capture the electronic mail addresses of the potential

participants. Once approval from IRB was obtained an e-mail message was sent to each of the

240 sample members, which described the purpose of the study, invited participation in the

study, and included a link to the survey. The researchers telephone number and e-mail address

were included in the e-mail message. This enabled any participant or prospective participant who

had questions about the study to contact the researcher by using either telephone or e-mail.

Participants who accept the informed consent text (Appendix E) were given passwords and

instructions for completing the survey. The timeframe for responding to the survey was 3 weeks,

based on the date of the original e-mail message. The researcher utilized two follow-up e-mail

messages (one each week) in order to ensure the anticipated response rate was attained.

Data-Analysis Procedures

The dimensional score of flexibility versus stability was calculated as follows (Figure 4):

the respondents clan and adhocracy scores were totaled together and then the respondents

hierarchy and market scores were subtracted from the clan plus adhocracy total. A positive score

represents an organization that is somewhat to very flexible while a negative score represents an

organization that is somewhat to very stable. The dimensional score of internal versus external

was calculated as follows: the respondents clan and hierarchy scores were totaled together and

then the respondents adhocracy and market scores was subtracted from the clan plus hierarchy

total. A positive score represents an organization that is somewhat to very internally focused

while a negative score represents an organization that is somewhat to very externally focused.
 64

Figure 4. Dimensions of the competing values framework. From Diagnosing and changing
organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework (3rd ed.; p. 35), by K. S.
Cameron, and R. E. Quinn 2011. Copyright by Jossey-Bass.

The alpha level for this study was set at p < .05. However, because of the exploratory

nature of this study, findings significant at the p < .10 level were noted to suggest possible

avenues for future research. Data were initially tabulated using standard summary statistics

(means, standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages).

Statistical Approach for Research Question 1was a MANOVA, followed by three one-

way ANOVA tests with eta coefficients. As an additional set of analyses for Research Question

1, the four OCAI scores were correlated with the three lean practices scores using Pearson

correlations.

Statistical Approach for Research Question 2 was a MANOVA, followed by three one-

way ANOVA tests with eta coefficients. As an additional set of analyses for Research Question

2, the two dimensional scores (flexibility versus control and internal versus external) were

correlated with the three lean practices scores using Pearson correlations.

A total of 121 surveys were completed, for an initial response rate of 50%. After

examination of the responses for missing data, outliers, and nonresponse patterns, the resulting

sample size of 83 respondents (35%) was obtained. Griffis, Goldsby, and Cooper (2003)
 65

commented about the decline in web-based survey responses, stating, The traditional

benchmark of 20% usable responses seems less common today than ever before (p. 237).

Larson and Poist (2004) support Griffiss et al. (2003) findings on the decline rate for survey

responses. Wright and Schwager (2008) performed online survey research in an effort to improve

response factors. Their sampling frame of N = 1,696 resulted in 280 usable responses, or

approximately 16.5%. Accordingly, the response rate for this survey is not unexpected. Based on

the cited literature review, the sample size can be characterized as adequate for this study.

Plans for IRB

The safeguard of human subjects is an essential ethical consideration. Having the IRB

examine the plans is an integral component of the dissertation process so that potential risks for

the study participants can be assessed (Creswell, 2007). Pepperdine Universitys (2009) policy

states, The primary goal of the GPS IRB is to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects

participating in research activities conducted under the auspices of Pepperdine University (p.

62). Pepperdine Universitys policy states that ethical principles and guidelines aid the IRB in

resolving ethical problems that might arise from research conducted with human subjects.

The researcher was required to and completed training on federal guidelines for the

protection of human participants-subjects, as required by Pepperdine University (2009), and as

shown in Appendix F. In addition, research done at Pepperdine University must adhere to all

other appropriate federal, state, and local laws and policies. One component of being in

adherence with the IRB guidelines is that an informed consent form is created for participants to

sign prior to participating in the research. This form indicates the participants acknowledged that

their rights were protected throughout the data collection process and after it. According to

Creswell (2007) elements of the form include voluntary participation and the right to exit the
 66

study at any time, the studys likely impact on them as well as its purpose, the studys

procedures, the right to receive a copy of the results, the right to ask questions and have their

privacy respected, benefits of the study that are applicable to the participant, and the signatures

of the participants showing that they agree to these terms. Appendix E contains a copy of the

consent text that was used in this study and it encompassed all of the required elements . When

the dissertation committee reviewed and approved the proposal, an application was submitted to

the Pepperdine University IRB for an expedited review. The activities on this research show that

there is minor amount of risk to human subjects, therefore per the guidelines, expedited review

applies. The proposed survey plan was submitted to the Pepperdine IRB for approval before

commencing the study. An overview of the proposed research plan is represented in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Research plan.

Summary

This chapter contains a restatement of the research questions, description of the research

methodology, process for selection of data sources, definition of analysis unit, definition of data

gathering instruments, validity of data-gathering instruments, data-gathering procedures,

reliability of data-gathering instrument data procedures, description of the data-analysis process,

and IRB plans. Consistency is kept with the goals stated in Chapter 1 for this research design.

Lean practitioners were interviewed to collect data. The researcher reviewed the survey

responses and synthesized and interpreted the information gathered after collecting the data. The

items presented in Chapters 4 and 5 are outcomes, conclusions, implications, and suggestions.
 67

Chapter 4: Presentation and Analysis of the Data

The purpose of this quantitative study was to explore and evaluate the role that

organizational culture had on successful lean implementation and to identify if there were any

relationships between the organizational culture type (Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy, and Market)

and culture dimension (Flexibility versus Control, and Internal versus External) as the

Competing Values Framework and three lean implementation elements (Support, Utilization, and

Infrastructure) define. A total of 83 respondents participated in this study.

Table 2 displays the frequency counts for selected variables. Most in the study (71.1%)

were nonmanagement technical-professional workers. Among the participants, 80% had at least

an undergraduate degree and 45.8% had at least one graduate degree. The years with the

company ranged from 1 to 43 years (M = 22.93, SD = 9.99). The most common general work

environment was system engineering (38.6%) and pertaining to specific work environment,

65.1% answered that they were in a technical environment. Based on the results of the OCAI, the

most common organizational culture types was hierarchy (38.6%) followed by market (28.9%)

and clan (26.5%; Table 2).

Table 2.

Frequency Counts for Selected Variables

Variable Category n %

Job Role

Non-Management Technical/Professional 59 71.1

Supervisory 3 3.6

Middle Management 14 16.9

(continues)
 68

Variable Category n %

Senior Management 7 8.4

Educational Experience

High school graduate 9 10.8

Certificate or associates degree 8 9.6

Undergraduate degree 28 33.7

Graduate degree 38 45.8

Years with Company a

1 to 9 years 8 9.6

10 to 19 years 15 18.1

20 to 29 years 37 44.6

30 to 43 years 23 27.7

General Work Environment

Manufacturing 7 8.4

System Engineering 32 38.6

Program Management 11 13.3

Other Environment 33 39.8

Specific Work Environment

Business environment 29 34.9

Technical environment 54 65.1

Culture Type

Clan 22 26.5

(continues)
 69

Variable Category n %

Adhocracy 5 6.0

Hierarchy 32 38.6

Market 24 28.9
a
Years with company: M = 22.93, SD = 9.99.
Note. (N = 83)

Table 3 displays the psychometric characteristic for the aggregated scale scores. The total

lean implementation score had a mean of M = 3.47 (SD = 0.69) with the highest of the three lean

elements being support (M = 3.73, SD = 0.80). Among the four OCAI scores, the highest was

market (M = 3.60, SD = 0.85) while the lowest was adhocracy (M = 3.19, SD = 0.93). The

Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients ranged from = .79 to = .93 with the median-sized

coefficient = .87. This suggests all scales had acceptable levels of internal reliability.

Table 3.

Psychometric Characteristics for the Aggregated Scale Scores

Scale Number of Items M SD Low High

Lean Support 5 3.73 0.80 1.40 5.00 .86

Lean Infrastructure 6 3.34 0.76 1.17 5.00 .86

Lean Utilization 5 3.35 0.70 1.40 5.00 .82

Total Lean Implementation 16 3.47 0.69 1.50 5.00 .93

OCAI Clan 6 3.34 0.95 1.00 4.83 .90

OCAI Adhocracy 6 3.19 0.93 1.00 4.83 .89

OCAI Market 6 3.60 0.85 1.17 5.00 .90

OCAI Hierarchy 6 3.53 0.71 1.00 5.00 .79

Note. (N = 83)
 70

Answering the Research Questions

Four independent variables of organizational culture clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, or

market and three dependent variables of lean implementation, support, utilization, and

infrastructure, were used to answer the studys research questions.

Research Question 1

Research question 1 stated: What is the relationship between organizational culture type

(clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, or market) and the three lean implementation elements (support,

utilization, and infrastructure)? The related null hypothesis predicted: The organizational culture

type (clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, or market) is not related to any of the three lean implementation

elements (support, utilization, and infrastructure). Table 4 displays the one-way ANOVA tests

with accompanying eta coefficients for the three lean implementation elements with culture type.

No significant relationship was found among culture type and support (p = .26), infrastructure (p

= .24), or utilization (p = .15). As an additional analysis, the total implementation score was

compared to culture type. No significant relationship was found (p = .18). This combination of

findings provided support to retain the null hypothesis.

Table 4.

Relationship of Lean Implementation Scores Based on Culture Type

Lean Score Culture Type n M SD F p

Lean Support .22 1.36 .26

Clan 22 3.67 0.82

Adhocracy 5 3.16 1.07

Hierarchy 32 3.89 0.78

(continues)
 71

Lean Score Culture Type n M SD F p

Market 24 3.68 0.72

Lean Infrastructure .23 1.42 .24

Clan 22 3.26 0.64

Adhocracy 5 2.80 0.86

Hierarchy 32 3.50 0.73

Market 24 3.32 0.86

Lean Utilization .25 1.81 .15

Clan 22 3.44 0.45

Adhocracy 5 2.76 0.82

Hierarchy 32 3.47 0.78

Market 24 3.25 0.73

Total Lean Implementation

Clan 22 3.44 0.56 .25 1.70 .18

Adhocracy 5 2.90 0.87

Hierarchy 32 3.61 0.70

Market 24 3.41 0.72

Note. (N = 83)

Research Question 2

Research question 2 stated: What is the relationship between the two organizational

culture dimensions (flexibility versus control and internal versus external) and the three lean

implementation elements (support, utilization, and infrastructure)? The related null hypothesis

predicted: Neither of the two organizational culture dimensions (flexibility versus control and
 72

internal versus external) will be related to any of the three lean implementation elements

(support, utilization, and infrastructure). To answer this question, Table 5 displays the Pearson

product-moment correlations between the two organizational culture dimensions with the three

lean elements plus the total lean implementation score. Inspection of the table found none of the

eight correlations to be significant at the p < .05 level. This combination of findings provided

support to retain the null hypothesis. Pearson product-moment correlation matrix was used to test

this hypothesis, testing for pair-wise correlation between the independent variables and

dependent variables. Correlation is a parameter of the bivariate distribution, and is used to

describe the association between two variables. Both dependent and independent variables are

assumed to be random in this statistical technique. The magnitude of the correlation and

statistical significance are used to examine and quantify these relationships.

Table 5.

Relationship Between Organizational Culture Dimensions With Lean Implementation Elements

Lean Implementation Flexibility Internal

Lean Support -.01 .09

Lean Infrastructure -.07 .12

Lean Utilization .11 .14

Total Lean Implementation .00 .13

* p < .05.
Note. (N = 83)

Summary

This study used data from 83 surveys to explore and evaluate the role that organizational

culture had on successful lean implementation and to identify if there were any relationship

between the organizational culture type (Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy, and Market) and culture
 73

dimension (Flexibility versus Control, and Internal versus External) as the Competing Values

Framework and three lean implementation elements (Support, Utilization, and Infrastructure)

define. Hypothesis 1 (culture type with lean elements) was not supported (Table 4). Hypothesis 2

(culture dimensions with lean elements) was not supported (Table 5). In the final chapter, these

findings will be compared to the literature, conclusions and implications will be drawn, and a

series of recommendations will be suggested.

 74

Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Summary of the Results

The purpose of this quantitative study is to investigate and determine if there is a

relationship between perceived organizational culture type (Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy, and

Market) and culture dimension (Flexibility versus Control, and Internal versus External), as the

Competing Values Framework and the three lean implementation elements (Support, Utilization,

and Infrastructure) define. Two research questions were created to examine the relationship

between organizational culture and key elements of lean implementation:

Research question 1: What is the relationship between organizational culture type (clan,

adhocracy, hierarchy, or market) and the three lean implementation elements (support,

utilization, and infrastructure)?

Null hypothesis 1: The organizational culture type (clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, or market)

is not related to any of the three lean implementation elements (support, utilization, and

infrastructure)?

Alternative hypothesis 1: The organizational culture type (clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, or

market) is related to at least one of the three lean implementation elements (support, utilization,

and infrastructure)?

Research question 2: What is the relationship between the two organizational culture

dimensions (flexibility versus control and internal versus external) and the three lean

implementation elements (support, utilization, and infrastructure)?

Null hypothesis 2: Neither of the two organizational culture dimensions (flexibility

versus control and internal versus external) will be related to any of the three lean

implementation elements (support, utilization, and infrastructure).

 75

This research was performed on survey data collected from the XYZ Aerospace

Company. The survey was sent out to 240 employees of varying job classifications throughout a

4-week period. The survey was web-based and hosted through SurveyMonkey.com, as described

in Chapter 3. A total of 121 surveys were completed, for an initial response rate of 50%. After

examination of the responses for missing data, outliers, and nonresponse patterns, the resulting

sample size of 83 respondents (35%) was obtained. Subsequently, statistical analyses were

performed on this dataset to examine these relationships. The results indicate that the null

hypothesis is supported for both research questions. The findings in this study do not

demonstrate a significant positive correlations among all related constructs, which were

organizational culture type (clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, or market), organizational culture

dimensions (flexibility versus control and internal versus external), and three lean implantation

elements (support, utilization, and infrastructure).

Literature Review Analysis

There is a wealth of information written on the subject concerning organizational culture

and lean implementation. However, quantifiable evidence is not available from current studies

and literature on the relationship between organizational culture and lean implementation in the

aerospace industry. A possible explanation is provided by Schein (1992), who argued that

measuring organizational culture through questionnaires is not easy to accomplish, as the

responses are only reflective of personal attitudes.

As discussed in the first chapter, the aerospace industry is facing unprecedented change

(Bennis & Thomas, 2002) and to thrive in this competitive environment, its imperative to

improve quality and reduce cost in order for the organization to survive (Aragon-Sanchez et al.,

2003). As a result of the current environment, industry leaders are implementing lean-
 76

manufacturing practices to maintain and gain competitiveness (Crute, Ward, Brown, & Graves,

2003). The literature supports the claim that lean methods are necessary for companies to be

competitive and to confront the challenge of achieving global competitiveness (Kojima &

Kaplinsky, 2004, p. 199). The question that leaders face is to determine the best approach to

implement lean in an organization. Determining the best approach to implement lean is crucial

for leaders since the failure rate of most quality planned organizational change initiatives is high.

According to the literature, the difficulties range from ignoring the organization culture type to

not providing enough employees training (Koenigsaecker, 2005). Cameron and Quinn (2011)

argue that most lean initiative fail and based on their research, as many as three quarters of

reengineering, TQM, strategic planning, and downsizing efforts have resulted in serious enough

problems that the survival of the organization was threatened.

The literature review supports the assertion that organizational culture represents a

crucial component on lean implementations success (Rad, 2006). Carnell (2004) argues that the

failure to consider the organizations culture would merely devolve lean implementation into a

mindless execution of an activity performed by disinterested employees. The literature also

shows evidence that organizations that succeeded in improving business performance changed

their cultures to align with process improvement frameworks (McAdam & Lafferty, 2004).

Therefore, the purpose of this research was to analyze the relationship between organizational

culture and lean implementation in the aerospace industry using the Competing Values

Framework and three elements of lean implementation. The findings of this research might

provide leaders with information that shows the importance of considering organizational culture

when implementing lean initiatives in aerospace organizations.

 77

Literature in Support of the Findings

The objective of this study was to quantify the relationship between organizational

culture and lean implementation. The findings for the two research question showed no

correlation among any of the four organizational culture types and the three lean implementation

elements. Therefore, the study concludes that there are no relationships among organizational

culture type and lean implementation elements.

The findings presented in Chapter 4 are supported by several researchers studies, which

also found no significant interactions between the hierarchical culture and quality management

initiatives. According to Duque and Cadavid (2007), continuous improvement, regardless of

organization culture type, is the core engine of lean manufacturing (Choi & Liker, 1995; Duque

& Cadavid, 2007). Other researchers (Mann, 2009) argued that the culture that is necessary to

implement lean is a culture in which all employees are engaged in continuous improvements

(Choi & Liker, 1995; Huehn-Brown & Murray, 2010; Liker & Morgan, 2006). This research

confirms those arguments by indicating that there is no significant correlation between the

organizational culture type (clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, or market) and lean implementation.

Cameron and Freeman (1991) performed a study of United States universities and

concluded that hierarchical culture was not significantly related to any aspect of organizational

effectiveness. Quinn and Spreitzer (1991) performed a similar study and came to the same

conclusion in their research on organizational performance.

Literature Not in Support of the Findings

The findings on this research are in contrast to the research of Macey and Schneider

(2008), who argued that transformational leadership will lead to higher engagement, which in

this study it is considered one construct of lean culture. Also, the findings for the first research
 78

question are in contrast with previous research findings that concluded that the role of supportive

leadership has a relationship with the implementation of lean practices (Conca et al., 2004;

Lucey, 2008; Mann, 2009), as well as with the research conducted by Achanga et al. (2006), who

also makes the argument that leadership plays a significant part in lean implementation.

The findings of this study are inconsistent with Shortell et al. (1995) study regarding the

relationship between organizational culture and quality management. This study surveyed 61

United States hospitals and concluded as a result of their study, that out of the four

organizational cultural types, that the group and developmental culture types are conducive to

successful quality management implementation. In addition, a study of 72 quality professionals

conducted by Al-khalifa and Aspinwell (2000) found that the group culture and the

developmental culture were considered to be important types for quality management

implementation. Mann (2009) achieved similar results in his study of 270 members of the

National Association of County Behavioral Health.

This research does not align with recent research that focused on implementing lean

initiatives that consider organization culture a crucial component to support lean implementation

Liker & Morgan, 2006), as well as other research that has explored the impact of leadership in

implementing lean (Achanga et al., 2006), and discussed the need for a supportive organizational

culture to implement lean.

Literature Review Synthesis

One possible explanation for the difference in results between this study and other studies

could be that other studies were qualitative and had different sampling or instrumentation. Many

researchers conclude that all organizations can gain a measure of success in any lean

implementation as long as they persist in its own context and apply lean principles to its current
 79

context (Green & May, 2005). Much of the existing research studies have shown that the

common lean production tools and practices will produce benefits for discrete product producers.

Green and May (2005) do suggest that even inappropriate use of the tools or implementation

without full commitment to the lean principles does provide benefits.

Per the literature, there is a strong belief that organizational culture can be an enabling

force to lean implementation. There are well-established and accepted theoretical frameworks

that support this viewpoint. Lean production implementation is responsible for large-scale

improvements in production facilities (Carreira, 2005). Research has shown that the

organizational context is instrumental in a successful lean implementation. Researchers generally

believe that, in order to be effective, lean production strategies, tools, and procedures must be in

line with the organization (Liker & Morgan, 2006).

Considerable resources must be dedicated to lean implementation. Having knowledge

that maximizes the potential impact of lean implementation is valuable. This study gives

researchers and practitioners a better understanding of contextual effects on lean implementation

in the aerospace industry.

The findings in this study support several researchers claims in the literature that

continuous improvement not or organizational culture is the engine of lean implementation

(Duque & Cadavid, 2007). Lean production is an operations management theory that seeks to

increase competitiveness of a company through removing variability and provide value for the

customer through the elimination of waste (Standard & Davis, 1999). Lean production is a value-

laden systems theory in which the organizations individuals learn and participate in the

organizations evolution (Liker & Morgan, 2006; Standard & Davis, 1999).
 80

Conclusions and Implications

The context of this study is unique because of the environment in which it was

performed. This research is the first to investigate the relationship of organizational culture and

lean implementation in an aerospace organization. This research has provided an opportunity to

study a cross section of an aerospace organization. Cameron and Quinn (2011) speak of an

organizations cultural congruence, where a companys strategy, leadership style, and

management systems all emphasize the same set of cultural values. In this environment, the

appearance of cultural incongruence drives the need for cultural change. This study improves

ones understanding of the dynamics of this change.

The findings of this study do not support the role that culture has in relationship to lean

implementation. The studys results do not indicate that aerospace organizations that are

implementing a lean initiative would be well served to utilize an approach that takes into account

the organizations culture type. This is significant because it provided quantifiable data that

supports the null hypotheses stated in Chapter 1 and had been written about extensively as being

missing in the literature. The implications for organizations are potentially important in that

leaders may purposefully implement strategies, structures, and policies in order to enhance the

success of lean implementation.

This study, designed to evaluate the relationship between organizational culture and lean

implementation, added additional knowledge to the overall body of knowledge by providing

quantitative data to help determine which specific organizational cultures are more conducive to

lean initiatives. Using the competing values framework this study explored the cultural

relationship to key component of the implementationupper management support,

organizational infrastructure, and utilization of lean methodology. The purpose of the study is to
 81

allow lean initiatives that improve problem solving and reduce waste to be applied in aerospace

organizations that are under increasing pressure to reduce costs and improve quality. Gaining

information about the relationship of organizational culture and lean implementation could help

contribute to the effectiveness of a lean initiative. There are opportunities to influence and guide

key organizational practices by understanding the role and cultural characteristics that lead to

greater implementation of key lean components.

The study addressed two research questions related to the relationship between the group

and developmental cultures and lean management support. The hypotheses that organizational

cultural type has significant interactions with lean management support were not supported.

These findings are consistent with previous studies conducted on the relationship between

quality management and organizational culture. The results provide additional support to the

position that lean methods can allow an organization to achieve improvement in performance

without considering organizational cultural type. According to Johnson, Sun, and Johnson

(2007), the most important benefit for any company is cost savings through the elimination of

waste, which is the key element that makes up the foundation of lean manufacturing.

The results of this study and previous studies indicate that characteristics associated with

the group culture, such as collaboration, involvement, and learning are not significant factors for

and effective lean implementation. Particularly significant was the reaction that occurred with

group culture and management support. The leadership style of a group culture leader consists of

collaboration and employee involvement. Leaders assume a role of mentors who focus on

developing strong relationships with the organizations members. These results are inconsistent

with the study that was conducted by Dellana and Hauser (1999) with 1,000 members of the

American Society for Quality, and found group culture to have a positive relationship with
 82

leadership support. The group culture is characterized by a focus on internal relationships and a

commitment to and the development of human resources, encouraging learning and teamwork

key elements in quality initiatives.

Organizational leaders who are considering implementing lean might be well served to

focus on thorough training of employees and involving employees as much as logistically

possible in various aspects of the initiative. Frequent and bidirectional communication about the

initiative will help employees to understand and commit to utilizing lean practices. Leaders who

role model and mentor employees about using these practices will expedite and reinforce the

standard utilization of lean practices.

The characteristics of the developmental culture, a focus on flexibility, change, and

innovation, were also not significant factors for a lean initiative. Understanding the key steps

involved with a change process will help facilitate the integration of lean practices within the

organization. The developmental cultures emphasis on risk and innovation are congruent with

the lean tenet of continuous improvement.

The hypothesis that the hierarchical culture will significantly interact with lean

infrastructure was not supported and the hypothesis that the rational culture will significantly

interact with lean methodology was also not supported. These findings were not consistent with

studies that found a positive relationship between the rational culture and quality management

methodology. Although the results of this study did not indicate a positive interaction between

the rational culture and the use of lean methodology, it would appear that there are characteristics

of the rational culture that would be useful for a lean implementation, including the focus on

strategic planning and achievement.

 83

This study added to the findings of previous studies demonstrating the relationship

between organizational culture and quality management. The nature of this relationship is not

clearly defined, as there are different perspectives in the literature on whether organizational

culture can be managed. It would appear that the relationship is somewhat bidirectional. An

appropriate organizational culture must exist to implement effectively quality management. Lean

initiatives are more likely to succeed if the prevailing organizational culture is compatible with

lean assumptions. This conclusion is consistent with a recent study from the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology Lean Advancement Initiative (Rebenstich, 2008) which shows that there

is no evidence that the maturity of lean implementation in aerospace is at more than an

introductory level. Among the many reasons believed to be contributing to this situation, a

survey (Rebenstich, 2008) points to the lack of prioritization and underlying models to define

appropriately value in support of resource allocation decision making in engineering activities as

sources of problems in implementing specific components of lean methods.

Cameron and Quinn (1999) indicated that if an organizations culture is significantly

different than the values and assumptions that form the foundation of lean, the implementation

process will be slow and difficult. By understanding the cultural characteristics that lead to

greater implementation of key lean components, there are opportunities to influence and guide

key organizational practices.

Recommendations for Future Research

A survey methodology results in a broad yet shallow picture of the overall phenomena

(Robson, 2002). So, while this study provides a general picture of lean over the aerospace

industry sector, it does not give specific information about what would work the best in an

individual company in a specific context. Further research is necessary on the part of any
 84

organization wishing to use this study to inform an implementation process. Alternative methods

such as written surveys, questionnaires, or personal interviews may help improve the response

rate as well as alleviate some concerns with common method bias. In addition, the survey

queried only a selected aerospace organization; not all aerospace organizations were surveyed.

Respondents to the survey come from departments of an aerospace organization that are

implementing lean as well as departments that have not implemented lean. Some attempts were

made to separate these two categories of organizations in the analysis; however, it is not possible

to separate completely the two categories, as organizations will utilize lean tools whether they

intend to implement fully lean concepts. As a result, it is possible that the results of this study do

not reflect fully the effectiveness of the lean in organizations that have implemented lean.

The results of this study may not be transferable to different industry sectors. Different

industry sectors have different environments in which they compete and must tailor their systems

for that environment. James-Moore and Gibbons (1997) used a structured-interview process to

compare lean practices described in the literature, and compared the practices to the practices

used in a highly differentiated, low-volume industry: the aerospace industry. As much as 90% of

lean practices have relevance in the aerospace industry; only 48% were used. The authors

concluded that different industries have different requirements and that some practices are not

transferrable to other industries without modifications.

In analyzing these findings, it can be concluded that the choice of industry sector will

have an impact on lean adaptation. This finding will also lead to questions in other research

results that have been conducted outside the automotive industry. In addition, if industry

segments make a difference, different times and different economic conditions could also make a

difference. Such research about the transportability of lean into different industries would help
 85

answer these questions. Operations strategies and process constraints inherent in these other

industry sectors may alter the effectiveness of various lean tools. Future research is needed to

examine how the effectiveness of these tool sets differs across the sectors. Companies competing

in the same markets should have similar challenges and so the strategies developed should be

similar; however, lean philosophies are not yet universal (Bendell, 2005; De Toni & Tonchia,

2002).

Another recommendation for future research is to measure productivity. The participants

in the survey were asked for their perceptions of the effectiveness of the lean tools for improving

productivity. The reason that perceptions were used instead of productivity measurements are

that productivity has many contributing factors and lean tools are often synergistic. Also,

companies may not use all the tools in a tool set or even use them the same way. Direct

measurement could easily be misleading. The response rate to the survey would probably have

been much lower if the survey had asked for measurements. Productivity measurements are more

time consuming for participants to determine and constitute more sensitive information than

perceptions. However, productivity measurements would provide much more precise data.

As highlighted above, this research provides insight into the relationship between

organizational culture and lean implementation. Aspects for future research arise from this study.

While researchers agree culture is deep-seated and difficult to change completely, there are a

number of strategies that leaders of an organization may utilize to help influence the

organizations culture. Leaders have the task to influence culture and to be successful they need

to determine to focus items that are crucial to the success of the organization and to be able to

measure the progress. In addition, leaders can adopt a conduct that can influence the

organization by leading by example which includes teaching, and coaching other employees.
 86

Future research should use longitudinal studies throughout a period of time to clarify the lean-

culture relationship. Ployhardt and Vandenberg (2010) present a host of concerns to consider

when designing a long-term longitudinal research study. Understanding issues such as the

number of observations to be made and the understanding and handling of attrition are essential

to the design of a follow-up study. Friedrich, Byrne, and Mumford (2009) suggest testing

alternative plausible models based on pertinent research. In this way, causal ordering of the

relationships potentially can be confirmed. Therefore, it would be valuable to conduct a

longitudinal study to explore any correlation between lean culture and lean leadership style.

There were a number of potential research areas that emerged from the results of this

study. An organizations integration of lean components is connected to factors such as trust and

participation in decision making. Previously cited research has revealed that a climate of trust

and involvement in decision making tend to be more associated with the flexibility and

developmental group cultures. There is likely to be less resistance to a lean initiative found in

these two cultures. For managers implementing lean, it would be advisable to emphasize

teamwork and involvement. One potential area for future research is the causal relationship

between organizational culture and quality management. This study was based on the premise

that an organizations culture has an influence on the implementation of quality management

practices. There is an opposing perspective regarding the relationship between organizational

culture and quality management, which maintains that the implementation of a quality

management initiative serves to change an organizations culture. This study did not explore the

direction of causality between lean implementation and organizational culture. It is not clear

whether the organizational culture determines the success of lean implementation, if the lean

implementation modifies the organizations culture, or if it is a bidirectional occurrence. The

 87

bidirectional model would involve the need for appropriate cultural characteristics to exist for the

successful implementation of lean, and similarly, the lean implementation could have an

influence on the organizations culture. While the bidirectional model appears plausible,

additional research is needed to explore the causal relationship between organizational culture

and quality management implementation.

Another potential area for future research involves the paradoxes associated with quality

management. Researchers maintain that to understand better the relationship between culture and

quality initiatives, there needs to be an understanding of the paradoxes associated with quality

management. An example of one of these paradoxes is the importance of promoting creativity

while also emphasizing the importance of control and lack of variation. How an organization can

effectively manage these paradoxes is a potential subject for future research.

There are different perspectives involving the researching of organizational culture. This

study was based on a quantitative approach. Another perspective on researching organizational

culture is the qualitative perspective. Future research could be conducted utilizing a combined

methodology approach to the study of organizational cultureboth qualitative and quantitative.

Final Summary

This research is the first to investigate the relationship between organizational culture and

lean implementation elements in the aerospace industry. In addition, this study provided

information on the relationship between organizational culture and lean in the aerospace industry

using the competing values framework. The findings contribute to the literature on which

cultural types have more influence on the implementation of key aspects of a lean initiative. A

study of this relationship is important for several reasons. It provides information on how

specific cultural characteristics, particularly the group culture, impact the key components of a
 88

lean initiative. The information generated from this study may assist aerospace organizations that

are considering implementing lean initiatives by providing an understanding of what cultural

values correspond with effective lean implementation. Managers who are conscious and

knowledgeable of the relationship between organizational cultural type and lean implementation

elements will be able to adjust their organizations practices and systems to implement better

lean methodology.

A comprehensive analysis of the literature revealed that organizational culture is an

important factor in quality management initiatives (Shortell et al., 1995). The literature also

revealed that particular cultural types are more positively correlated with various components of

lean initiatives. The findings of this study do not support the conclusions from the literature that

there is a positive relationship among management support, the group, and developmental

organizational cultures in the aerospace industry.

The results of this study indicated that the qualities associated with the group culture had

no significant relationship with the management support component of lean implementation.

Characteristics associated with the group culture, such as collaboration, involvement, and

learning, are not key factors for a lean initiative.

The results from this study suggest a number of potential areas for future research.

Although this study did not provide support for the relationship between cultural types and lean

components, it also did not explore whether the organizational culture determines the success of

lean implementation, if the lean implementation modifies the organizations culture, or if it is a

bidirectional occurrence. Continued research into the relationship between lean and

organizational culture will increase the understanding of what factors are essential for successful

lean implementation.
 89

Successful lean implementation could help improve aerospace systems and processes,

clarify policies and strategies, and provide an organizational structure that will result in improved

performance. Those aerospace organizations that have successfully implemented lean initiatives

have reported stronger organizational performance by reductions in engineering errors, reduction

of waste, cost savings, and increases in revenue. Process improvements will lead to reductions in

audit findings and higher quality in aerospace organizations resulting in significant impact on

future contracts.

The hypothesis that the hierarchical culture has a significant interaction with lean

infrastructure was not supported. This hypothesis was based on the hierarchical cultures focus

on being internal and control oriented. This culture is characterized by a strict adherence to

formal rules, procedures, structure, and authority. This culture emphasis is on structure stability,

with employees roles clearly documented and enforced through policies and procedures. This

focus on control and on clearly established roles would appear to correspond with the

infrastructure practices that are associated with lean. These finding of no significant reaction are

consistent with previous studies, which also found no significant interactions between the

hierarchical culture and quality management.

The hypothesis stating the rational culture significantly reacts with utilization of lean

methodology was not supported. The rational culture is focused on achievement, productivity,

and being results-oriented. These characteristics would appear to be consistent with the

utilization of measurement and lean methodology. Leaders tend to be goal-oriented and directive

and focus on efficiency and control (Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991). There is also an emphasis on

competition, which perhaps might result in inconsistencies with the use of lean methodology.
 90

The results of this dissertation show that Hypothesis 1 (culture type with lean elements)

was not supported. Hypothesis 2 (culture dimensions with lean elements) was also not supported.

These new results may help change agents better implement lean in their organizations. It is also

recommended that these correlations be investigated on other companies within the aerospace

industry to determine if the findings hold true to the aerospace industry or if the research findings

are phenomena only for individual aerospace organizations.

 91

REFERENCES

Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R., & Nelder, G. (2006). Critical success factors for lean
implementation within SMEs. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17,
460471. doi:10.1108/17410380610662889

Aday, L. A., & Cornelius, L. J. (2006). Designing and conduction health surveys: A
comprehensive guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Al-Khalifa, K., & Aspinwell, E. (2000). Using the competing values framework to identify the
ideal culture profile for TQM. The International Journal of Manufacturing Technology,
2, 17. doi:10.1504/IJMTM.2000.001390

Allen, P. (2001). What is complexity science? Knowledge of the limits to knowledge.

Emergence, 3(1), 2442. doi:10.1207/S15327000EM0301_03

Anand, G., Ward, P. T., Tatikonda, M. V., & Schilling, D. A. (2009). Dynamic capabilities
through continuous improvement infrastructure. Journal of Operations Management, 27,
444461. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2009.02.002

Antony, J., & Seow, C. (2007). Can six sigma be the cure. Leadership in Health Services, 20,
242249. doi:10.1108/17511870710829355

Aragon-Sanchez, A., Barba-Aragon, I., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2003). Effects of training on business
results. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(6), 956980.
doi:10.1080/0958519032000106164

Atkins, J., & Turner, D. (2006). Upgrade stakeholder service by changing your agencys
organizational culture. Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, 76(12), 3032, 37.
Retrieved from http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=798674

Avolio, B., & Bass, B. (2002). Developing potential across a full range of leadership. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Babcock, R. R. (2003). Stressed out. Buildings, 97(12), 59. Retrieved from

http://www.buildings.com/article-details/articleid/1661/title/stressed-out.aspx

Baines, T., Lightfoot, H., Williams, G. M., & Greenough, R. (2006). State-of-the-art in lean
design engineering: A literature review on white collar lean. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B, 220(9), 15391547.
doi:10.1243/09544054JEM613

Baker, K. A. (2006). Organizational culture. Retrieved from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc

/awcgate/doe/benchmark/ch11.pdf.
 92

Balle, M., & Balle, F. (2009). The Lean manager: A novel of lean transformation. Cambridge,
MA: Lean Enterprise Institute.

Balogun, J., & Hailey, V. H. (2004). Exploring strategic change. Harlow, NY: Prentice Hall
Financial Times.

Balzer, W. K. (2010). Lean higher education: Increasing the value and performance of
university processes. New York, NY: Productivity.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free
Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the

vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 1931. Retrieved from
http://strandtheory.org/images/From_transactional_to_transformational_-_Bass.pdf

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture.
International Journal of Public Administration Quarterly, 17, 112121.
doi:10.1080/01900699408524907

Basu, R., & Wright, J. (2003). Quality beyond six sigma. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Beckert, B., & Posegga, J. (1995). LeanEA, a poor mans evolving algebra compiler. Karlsruhe,
Germany: Univ Karlsruhe.

Beer, M. (2003). Why total quality management programs do not persist. Decision Science, 34,
623642. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5414.2003.02640.x

Belson, D. (2010). Operations improvement methods: Choosing a path for hospitals and clinics.
Oakland, CA: California Healthcare Foundation.

Bendell, T. (2005). Structuring business process improvement methodologies. Total Quality

Management, 16(89), 969978. doi:10.1080/14783360500163110

Bennis, W. G., & Thomas, R. J. (2002). Crucibles of leadership. Harvard Business Review,
80(9), 3945. Retrieved from http://dmcodyssey.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/EQ-
Daniel-Goleman-in-HBR_10_Must_Reads_on_Leadership.pdf#page=61

Bhasin, S., & Burcher, P. (2006). Lean viewed as a philosophy. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, 17, 5772. doi:10.1108/17410380610639506

Bhuiyan, N., & Baghel, A. (2005). An overview of continuous improvement: From the past to
the present. Management Decision, 43, 761771. doi:10.1108/00251740510597761
 93

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (4th
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Breyfogle, F., Cupelllo J., & Meadows B. (2001). Managing six sigma. New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons.

Bright, K., & Cooper, C. (1993). Organizational culture and the management of quality. Journal
of Management Psychology, 8, 2127. doi:10.1108/02683949310047437

Browning, T., & Heath, R. (2009). Reconceptualizing the effect of lean on production costs with
evidence from the F-22 program. Journal of Operations Management, 27(1), 2344.
doi:10.1016/j.jom.2008.03.009

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Bush, R. W. (2007). Reducing waste in US health care systems. JAMA, 297(23), 871874.
doi:10.1001/jama.297.8.871

Cameron, K. S., & Freeman, S. J. (1991). Cultural congruence, strength, and type: Relationships
to effectiveness. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5, 2358.
Retrieved from http://webuser.bus.umich.edu/cameronk/PDFs/Organizational%20
Culture/Cultural%20Congruence.pdf

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture based
on the competing values framework. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based
on the competing values framework (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cameron, K. S, Quinn, R. E., Degraff, J., & Thakor, A. (2006). Competing values leadership-
creating value in organizations. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Carnell, M. (2004). The Six Sigma mambo. Quality Progress, 37, 8791. Retrieved from
http://asq.org/quality-progress/2004/01/3.4-per-million/the-six-sigma-mambo.html

Carney, M. (2006). Understanding organizational culture: The key to successful middle manager
strategic involvement in health care delivery? Journal of Nursing Management, 14, 23
33. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2934.2005.00592

Carreira, B. (2005). Lean manufacturing that works: Powerful tools for dramatically reducing
waste and maximizing profits. New York, NY: AMACOM.

Chang, S., & Weibe, H. (1996). The ideal culture profile for total quality management:
Competing values perspective. Engineering Management Journal, 8, 1926.
doi:10.1080/10429247.1996.11414889
 94

Cheng, C., & Liu, A. (2007). The relationship of organizational culture and the implantation of
total quality management in construction firms. Surveying and Built Environmental, 18,
716. Retrieved from http://maill2.hkis.org.hk/ufiles/jrnl200706-v18i1_full.pdf#page=11

Choi, T. Y., & Liker, J. K. (1995). Bringing Japanese continuous improvement approaches to
U.S. manufacturing: The roles of process orientation and communications. Decision
Sciences, 26, 589620. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Liker
/publication/227648648_Bringing_Japanese_Continuous_Improvement_Approaches_to_
U.S._Manufacturing_The_Roles_of_Process_Orientation_and_Communications*/links/5
4d0dfb80cf29ca81103f5e1.pdf

Conca, F. J., Llopis, J., & Tar, J. J. (2004). Development of a measure to assess quality
management in certified firms. European Journal of Operational Research, 156, 683
697. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00145-0

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.

Crosby, P. B. (1985). Quality improvement through defect prevention. Winter Park, FL: Philip
Crosby Associates.

Crute, V., Ward, Y., Brown, S., & Graves, A. (2003). Implementing lean in aerospace:
Challenging the assumptions and understanding the challenges. Technovation, 23(12),
917928. doi:10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00081-6

Cusumano, M. (1985). The Japanese automobile industry: Technology management at Nissan

and Toyota. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dadzie, C.A., Winston, E. M., & Dadzie, K. Q. (2012). Organizational culture, competitive
strategy, and performance in Ghana. Journal of African Business, 13(3), 172182.
doi:10.1080/15228916.2012.727737

Dahlgaard, J. J., & Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. (2006). Lean production, six sigma quality, TQM and
company culture. TQM Magazine, 18, 263281. doi:10.1108/09544780610659998

Davies, A. J., & Kochhar, A. K. (2002). Manufacturing best practice and performing studies: A
critique. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22, 289305.
doi:10.1108/01443570210417597
 95

Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1999). The new corporate cultures: Revitalizing the workplace after
downsizing, mergers and reengineering. Reading, MA: Persus Books.

Dellana, S. & Hauser, R. (1999). Toward defining the quality culture. Engineering Management
Journal, 11, 1115. doi:10.1080/10429247.1999.11415022

Delobbe, N., Haccoun, R. R., & Vandenberghe, C. (2002). Measuring core dimensions of
organizational culture: A review of research and development of a new instrument.
Retrived from http://www.uclouvain.be/cps/ucl/doc/iag/documents/WP_53_Delobbe.pdf

Deming, W. E. (1982). Out of the crises. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Denison, D. (1984). Bringing corporate culture to the bottom line. Organizational Dynamics, 13,
522. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(84)90015-9

Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and
effectiveness. Organization Science, 6(2), 204223. doi:10.1287/orsc.6.2.204

Denison, D. R., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). Organizational culture and organizational

development: A competing values approach. Research in Organizational Change and
Development, 5, 121. doi:10.1287/orsc.6.2.204

Detert, J. R., Schroeder, R. G., & Mauriel, J. J. (2000). A framework for linking culture and
improvement initiatives in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 25, 850863.
doi:10.5465/AMR.2000.3707740

De Toni, A., & Tonchia, S. (2002). New production models: A strategic view. International
Journal of Production Research, 40(18), 47214741. doi:10.1080/00207540210158005

Doolen, T. L., & Hacker, M. E. (2005). A review of lean assessment in organizations: An

exploratory study of lean practices by electronics manufacturers. Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, 24, 5567. doi:10.1016/S0278-6125(05)80007-X

Duck, J. D. (1993). Managing change: The art of balancing. Harvard Business Review, 71(6),
109118. Retrieved from http://hr.buffalo.edu/files/phatfile/HBR_Change.pdf

Duque, D. F. M., & Cadavid, L. R. (2007). Lean manufacturing measurement: The relationships
between lean activities and lean metrics. Estudios Gerenciales, 23(105), 6983. Retrieved
from http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?pid=S0123-59232007000400004&script
=sci_arttext

Eckes, G. (2001). Making six sigma last: Managing the balance between cultural and technical
change. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Edwards, R. L., Yankey, J. A., & Altpeter, M. A. (2001). Skills for effective management of
nonprofit organizations. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.
 96

Evans, J. R., & Lindsay, W. M. (2005). The management and control of quality. Mason, OH:
South-Western.

Feigenbaum, A. V. (1951). Quality control: Principles, practices, and administration (1st ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Feigenbaum, A. V. (1991). Total quality control (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Flott, L. (2000). Six-sigma controversy. Metal Finishing, 4, 4348. doi:10.1016/S0026-

0576(01)80028-3

Fong, P. S. W., & Kwok, C. W. C. (2009). Organizational culture and knowledge management
success at project and organizational levels in contracting firms. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 135(12), 13481356. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0000106

Ford, H., & Crowther, S. (2003). My life and work. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger.

Fowler, F. J. (2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Sage.

Friedrich, T. L., Byrne, C. L., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). Methodological and theoretical
considerations in survey research. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 5760.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.001

Gabor, A. (1992). The man who discovered quality: How W. Edwards Deming brought the
quality revolution to America: The stories of Ford, Xerox, and GM. New York, NY:
Penguin Books.

Gander, M. P. (2009). Managing people in a lean environment: The power of informal controls
and effective management of company culture. Journal of Business Case Studies, 5(6),
105110. Retrieved from http://cluteinstitute.com/ojs/index.php/JBCS/article/view/4738

George, M. (2003). Lean Six Sigma for service: How to use lean speed and six sigma quality to
improve services and transactions. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Gharajedaghi, J., & Ackoff, R. L. (1984). Mechanisms, organisms and social systems. Strategic
Management Journal, 5, 289300. doi:10.1002/smj.4250050308

Goodman, E., Zammuto, R., & Gifford, B. (2001). The competing values framework:
Understanding the impact of organizational culture on the quality of work life.
Organizational Development Journal, 19, 5868. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/openview/f969938c1e7357afbad5733be83b3d33/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar
 97

Gordon, G. G. (1991). Industry determinants of organizational culture. The Academy of

Management Review, 16(2), 396415. doi:10.5465/AMR.1991.4278959

Green, S. (1999). The missing arguments of lean construction. Construction Management and
Economics, 17(2), 133137. doi:10.1080/014461999371637

Green, S. D., & May, S. C. (2005). Lean construction: Arenas of enactment, models of diffusion
and the meaning of leanness. Building Research & Information, 33(6), 498511.
doi:10.1080/014461999371637

Griffis, S. E., Goldsby, T. J., & Cooper, M. (2003). Web-based and mail surveys: A comparison
of response, data and cost. Journal of Business Logistics, 24(2), 237258.
http://search.proquest.com/openview/7908b8ffd3208df73931ec8f8286e080/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar

Gurumurthy, A., & Kodali, R. (2009). Application of benchmarking for assessing the lean
manufacturing implementation. Benchmarking, 16, 274308.
doi:10.1108/14635770910948268

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American
Sociological Review, 49(2), 149164. doi:10.2307/2095567

Harry, M., & Schroeder, R. (2000). Six sigma: The breakthrough management strategy
revolutionizing the worlds top corporations. New York, NY: Double Day.

Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational culture and organizational
effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the competing values frameworks
theoretical suppositions. American Psychological Association, 38(4), 677694.
doi:10.1037/a0021987

Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line staying alive through the dangers of
leading. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Herold, D. M., & Fedor, D. B. (2008). Change the way you lead change: Leadership strategies
that really work. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Hodgetts, R. M., & Luthans, F. (2003). Internaltional management: Culture, strategy and
behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (2001) Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and

organization across nations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hopp, W. J., & Spearman, M. L. (2000). Factory physics: Foundations of manufacturing

management (2nd ed.). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
 98

Hounshell, D. A. (1984). From the American system to mass production 18001932. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Howard, L. (1998). Validating the competing values model as a representation of organizational

cultures. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 6, 231250.
doi:10.1108/eb028886

Huehn-Brown, W., & Murray, S. (2010). Are companies continuously improving their supply
chain. Engineering Management Journal, 22(3), 310.
doi:10.1080/10429247.2010.11431874

Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen: The key to Japans competitive success. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill/Irwin.

James, T. (2005). Stepping back from lean. Manufacturing Engineer, 6(4), 1621.
doi:10.1049/me_20050101

James-Moore, M., & Gibbons, A., (1997). Is Lean manufacturing universally relevant.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 17(9), 899911.
doi:10.1108/01443579710171244

Jobo, R. S. (2003). Applying the lessons of Lean Now to transform the US aerospace
enterprise: A study guide for government lean transformation. Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Johnson, D. M., Sun, J., & Johnson, M. A. (2007). Integrating multiple manufacturing initiatives:
Challenge for automotive suppliers. Measuring Business Excellence, 11(3), 4156.
doi:10.1108/13683040710820746

Jung, T., Scott, T., Davies, H. T. O., Bower, P., Whalley, D., McNally, R., & Mannion, R.
(2009). Instruments for exploring organizational culture: A review of the literature.
Public Administration Review, 69(6), 10871096. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02066.x

Juran, J. M. (1964). Managerial breakthrough: A new concept of the managers job. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.

Juran, J. M. (1988). Juran on planning for quality. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Juran, G. (1998). Jurans quality handbook (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Kaye, M., & Anderson, R. (1999). Continuous improvement: The ten essential criteria.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 16, 485506.
doi:10.1108/02656719910249801

Kettner, R. B. (2004). Contributions of psychodynamic theories in understanding small groups.

Small Group Research, 35(3), 333362. doi:10.1177/1046496404264973
 99

Kimberly, J. R., & Quinn, R. E. (1984). Managing organizational transitions. Homewood, IL: R.
D. Irwin.

Koenigsaecker, G. (2005). Leadership and the lean transformation. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Kojima, S., & Kaplinsky, R. (2004). The use of a lean production index in explaining the
transition to global competitiveness: The auto components sector in South Africa.
Technovation, 24, 199206. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/id/eprint/5872

Kotter, J. P. (1999). What leaders really do. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review.

Kotter, J., & Heskett, J. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York, NY: Free Press.

Kotter, J. P., & Rathgeber, H. (2006). Our iceberg is melting. New York, NY: St. Martins Press.

Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Krafcik, J. F. (1988). Triumph of the lean productions system. Sloan Management Review, 30(1),
4152. Retrieved from http://www.lean.org/downloads/MITSloan.pdf

Kwan, P., & Walker, A. (2004). Validating the competing values model as a representation of
organizational culture through inter-institutional comparisons. Organizational Analysis,
12, 2140. doi:10.1108/eb028984

La Belle, A. (2010). Boundary crossings: Professional and situational influences on nonprofit

leaders and their organizations. Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University.

Lamond, D. (2003). The value of Quinns Competing Values Model in an Australian context.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 8(1/2), 4659. doi:10.1108/02683940310459583

Larson, P. D., & Poist, R. F. (2004). Improving response rates to mail surveys: A research note.
Transportation Journal, 43(4), 6774. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20713582

Levinson, H. (2002). Organizational assessment a step-by-step guide to effective consulting (1st

ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Liker, J. (1997). Becoming lean: Inside stories of U.S. manufacturers. Portland, OR: Productivity
Press.

Liker, J. K. (2004). The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the worlds greatest
manufacturer. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
 100

Liker, J. K., & Hoseus, M. (2008). Toyota culture: The heart and soul of the Toyota way. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Liker, J. K., & Morgan, J. M. (2006). The Toyota way in services: The case of lean product
development. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(2), 520.
doi:10.5465/AMP.2006.20591002

Lucey, D. J. (2003). From the chairman John Lucey. Management Services, 47(12), 32.
Retrieved from http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/11747680/from-chairman-
john-lucey

Lucey, D. J. (2008). The state of lean manufacturing in the UK 2001 to 2006. Management
Services, 52(3), 1625. Retrieved from
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/14696674/from-chairman-john-lucey

Luecke, R. (2003). Managing change and transition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.

MacDonald, J. (1998). Calling a halt to mindless change. New York, NY: AMACOM.

Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial &
Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 330. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x

Mann, D. (2009). The missing link: Lean leadership. Frontiers of Health Services Management,
26(1), 1526. Retrieved from http://www.britcham.org.ph/images/2013/06/The-Missing-
Link_Lean-Leadership_DWMann.pdf

Martin, J., & Siehl, C. (1983). Organizational culture and counterculture: An uneasy symbiosis.
Organizational Dynamics, 12(2), 5264. Retrieved from
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers/organizational-culture-
counterculture-uneasy-symbiosis

McAdam, R., & Lafferty, B. (2004). A multilevel case study critique of six sigma: Statistical
control or strategic change? International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 24(5/6), 530. doi:10.1108/01443570410532579

McManus, H. L., & Millard, R. L. (2002). Value stream analysis and mapping for product
development. Proceeding of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences (pp.
813). Toronto, Canada: Retrieved from http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/
7347/Value%20Stream%20Analysis%20and%20Mapping.pdf

Moody, P. E. (1997). Leading manufacturing excellence. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Murman, E., Allen, T., Bozdogan, K., Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J., McManus, H., Nightingale, D.
Widnall, S. (2002). Lean enterprise value: Insights from MITs lean aerospace initiative.
New York, NY: Palgrave.
 101

Nave, D. (2002). How to compare Six Sigma, lean and the theory of constraints. Quality
Progress, 35(3), 7378. Retrieved from http://www.lean.org/Search/Documents/242.pdf

Northouse, P. G. (2008). Leadership, theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system: Beyond large-scale production. Portland, OR:
Productivity Press.

Oliver, N., Delbridge, R., & Lowe, J. (1996). Lean production practices: International
comparisons in the auto components industry. British Journal of Management, 7, S29
S44. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.1996.tb00146.x

Openheim, B. W. (2011). Lean for systems engineering with lean enablers for systems
engineering. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Ouchi, M. (1981). Theory z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.

Pande, P., Neuman, R., & Cavanagn, R. (2000). The six sigma way. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.

Pasmore, W. (1988). Designing effective organizations: The sociotechnical systems perspective.

New York, NY: Wiley.

Pepperdine University. (2009). Institutional Review Board. Retrieved from

http://services.pepperdine.edu/irb/graduate/#gpsirb

Pettigrew, A., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying organizational change and
development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4),
697713. Retrieved from
http://www.sce.carleton.ca/faculty/tanev/TTMG_5004/Articles/Pettigrew_Studying_orga
nizational_change_and_development_2001.pdf

Ployhardt, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal research. The theory, design, and
analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36(1), 94120.
doi:10.1177/0149206309352110

Prajogo, D., & McDermott, C. (2004). The relationship between total quality management
practices and organizational culture. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 25, 11011123. doi:10.1108/01443570510626916

Preskill, H., & Torres, R. T. (1999). Evaluative inquiry for learning in organizations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

 102

Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. (1983). Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria of
effectiveness: Some preliminary evidence. Management Science, 29(1), 3351.
doi:10.1287/mnsc.29.1.33

Quinn, R., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards competing
values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363377.
doi:10.1287/mnsc.29.3.363

Quinn, R., & Spreitzer, G. (1991). The road to empowerment: Seven questions every leader
should consider. Organizational Dynamics, 26(2), 3749. doi:10.1016/S0090-
2616(97)90004-8

Rad, A. (2006). The impact of organizational culture on the successful implementation of total
quality management. The TQM Magazine, 18, 606614.
doi:10.1108/09544780610707101

Rebenstich, W. (2008). Lean product development in the Aerospace Enterprise. Proceedings

from the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences. Boston, MA: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.

Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2008). Essentials of organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Roper, W. (2005). The missing link of lean success. Society of Automotive Engineers
International. Retrieved from http://www.sae.org/manufacturing/lean/column/
leanmay02.htm

Ross, P. J. (1996). Taguchi techniques for quality engineering. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Professional.

Schaeder, M., Tears, R. S., & Jordan, M. H. (2005). Organizational culture in public sector
organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(6), 492502.
doi:10.1108/01437730510617681

Schein, E. H. (1983). The role of the founder in creating organizational culture. Organizational
Dynamics, 12(1), 1328. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(83)90023-2

Schein, E. (1988). Organizational culture. Cambridge, MA: Alfred P. Sloan School of

Management.

Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
 103

Schein, E. H. (1997). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E. H. (1999). Empowerment, coercive persuasion and organizational learning: Do they

connect? The Learning Organization, 6(4), 163172. doi:10.1108/09696479910280622

Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Scherkenbach, W. W. (1991). Demings road to continual improvement. Knoxville, TN: SPC

Press.

Schmidt, W., & Finnegan, J. (1992). The race without a finish line. Americas quest for total
quality. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schoenberger, R. J. (2001). Lets fix it: Overcoming the crisis in manufacturing. New York, NY:
The Free Press.

Schutta, J. (2006). Business performance through lean Six Sigma. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality
Press.

Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. (2003). Lean manufacturing: Context, practice bundles, and
performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21, 129149. doi:10.1016/S0272-
6963(02)00108-0

Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. (2007). Defining and developing measures in lean production. Journal
of Operations Management, 25, 785815. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.019

Shekari, G., Rahmdel, H., & Rajabian, E. (2012). Survey and ranking of factors affecting
improvement and promotion of organizational culture (case study: agricultural bank
branches in Mashhad). Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business,
4(4), 685. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/openview/1b52a7330a46ed1d2bb
10e9cccc8a831/1?pq-origsite=gscholar

Shelton, H. (2009). Secrets of success. Raleigh, NC: Ivy House.

Shewhart, W. (1980). Economic control of quality of manufactured product. Milwaukee, WI:

ASQ Quality Press.

Shortell, S. M., Levin, D.Z., Obrien, J.L., & Hughes, E. (1995). Assessing the evidence of CQI:
Is the glass half empty or half full? Hospital and Health Services Administration, 40, 56
72. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/openview/2d7ce4a66e55fedd0b0373038
de514d0/1?pq-origsite=gscholar
 104

Sims, R. (2000). Changing an organizations culture under new leadership. Journal of Business
Ethics, 25, 6578. doi:10.1023/A:1006093713658

Snee, R. D., & Hoerl, R. W. (2003). Leading Six Sigma. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hill.

Sohal, A. S., & Egglestone, A. (1994). Lean production: Experience among Australian
organizations. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14(11),
3551. doi:10.1108/01443579410068639

Sorensen, C. E. (1956). My forty years with Ford. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Sosik, J. J., & Dionne, S. D. (1997). Leadership styles and Demings behavior factors. Journal of
Business & Psychology, 11, 447462. doi:10.1007/BF02195891

Sousa, R., & Voss, C. A. (2002). Quality management re-visited: A reflective review and agenda
for future research. Journal of Operations Management, 20(1), 9110. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272696301000882

Spear, S. J. (2004). Learning to lead at Toyota. Harvard Business Review, 82(5), 7886.
Retrieved from http://progressivedge.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/11/Learning_to_Lead_at_Toyota.pdf

Standard, C., & Davis, D. (1999). Running todays factory: A proven strategy for lean
manufacturing. Dearborn, MI: Society of Manufacturing Engineers.

Stewart, J. (2006). Transformational leadership: An evolving concept examined through the

works of Burns, Bass, Avolio, and Leithwood. Canadian Journal of Educational
Administration and Policy, 54, 129. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ843441

Sugimori, Y., Kusunoki, K., Cho, F., & Uchikawa, S. (1977). Toyota production system and
Kanban system: Materialization of just-in-time and respect-for-human system.
International Journal of Production Research, 15, 553564.
doi:10.1080/00207547708943149

Taguchi, G. (1986). Introduction to quality engineering: Designing quality into products and
processes. Japan, Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization.

Tang, T. L.-P., Kim, J., & ODonald, D. A. (2000). Perceptions of Japanese organizational
cultureEmployees in non-unionized Japanese-owned and unionized US-owned
automobile plants. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 535559.
doi:10.1108/02683940010373383

Tierney, W. (1981). Organizational culture in higher education. Journal of Higher Education,

59(1), 221. doi:10.2307/1981868
 105

Treville, S., & Antonakis, J. (2006). Could lean production job design be intrinsically
motivating? Contexual, configural, level of analysis issues. Journal of Operations
Management, 24, 99123. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article
/pii/S0272696305000926

Uma, D. J., & Glenice J. W. (2006). The role of leadership theory in raising the profile of women
in management. Equal Opportunities International, 25(4), 236250.
doi:10.1108/02610150610706230

Weick, K., & Quinn, R. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of
Psychology, 50(1), 361386. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361

Whitfield, G., & Landeros, R. (2006). Supplier diversity effectiveness: Does organizational
culture really matter? Journal of Supply Chain Management, 42(4), 1628.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-493X.2006.00019

Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your
corporation. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (2003). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your
corporation. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Womack, J., Jones, D., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world: The story of
lean production. New York, NY: Rawson Associates.

Worley, J. M., & Doolen, T. L. (2006). The role of communication and management support in a
lean manufacturing implementation. Management Decision, 44(2), 228245.
doi:10.1108/00251740610650210

Wright, B., & Schwager, P. H. (2008). Online survey research: Can response factors be
improved? Journal of Internet Commerce, 7(2), 117. doi:10.1080/15332860802067730

Yeung, B., Brockbank, S., & Ulrich, D. (1991). Organizational learning capabilities.
England, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yu, T., & Wu, N. (2009). A review of study on the competing values framework. International
Journal of Business and Management, 4(7), 3742. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v4n7p37
 106

APPENDIX A:

Publisher Permission for Reprint

10/26/2014 Rightslink Printable License

https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet 1/7
JOHN WILEY AND SONS LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Oct 26, 2014
This is a License Agreement between Jesus Arroyo (You) and John Wiley and Sons
(John Wiley and Sons) provided by Copyright Clearance Center (CCC). The license
consists of your order details, the terms and conditions provided by John Wiley and Sons,
and the payment terms and conditions.
All payments must be made in full to CCC. For payment instructions, please see
information listed at the bottom of this form.
License Number 3496390124272
License date Oct 26, 2014
Licensed content publisher John Wiley and Sons
Licensed content publication Wiley Books
Licensed content title Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the
Competing Values Framework, 3rd Edition
Book title Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the
Competing Values Framework, 3rd Edition
Licensed copyright line Copyright 2011, John Wiley and Sons
Licensed content author Kim S. Cameron, Robert E. Quinn
Licensed content date Mar 1, 2011
Type of use Dissertation/Thesis
Requestor type University/Academic
Format Print and electronic
Portion Figure/
Number of figures/tables 3
Original Wiley figure/table
number(s)
Figure 3.1, Figure 3.2, Figure 4.1
Will you be translating? No
Title of your thesis /
dissertation
ASSESSMENT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL
CULTURE AND LEAN IMPLEMENTATION IN THE AEROSPACE
INDUSTRY
Expected completion date Dec 2014
Expected size (number of
pages)
140
Total 0.00 USD
Terms and Conditions
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
This copyrighted material is owned by or exclusively licensed to John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
 107

APPENDIX B:

Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)

Please rate your level of AGREEMENT with each of the following items:
1=strongly agree; 2=agree; 3=neither agree nor disagree; 4=disagree; 5=strongly disagree

1. Dominant Characteristics
1=strongly agree; 2=agree; 3=neither agree nor disagree; 4=disagree; 5=strongly disagree

A. My organization is a very personal place. It is like an extended family. People

seem to share a lot of themselves.
1 2 3 4 5

B. My organization is a very dynamic and entrepreneurial place. People are willing

to stick their necks out and take risks.
1 2 3 4 5

C. My organization is very results oriented. A major concern is with getting the job
done. People are very competitive and achievement oriented.
1 2 3 4 5

D. My organization is a very controlled and structured place. Formal procedures

generally govern what people do.
1 2 3 4 5
2. Organizational Leadership
1=strongly agree; 2=agree; 3=neither agree nor disagree; 4=disagree; 5=strongly disagree

A. The leadership in my organization is generally considered to exemplify

mentoring, facilitating or nurturing.
1 2 3 4 5

B. The leadership in my organization is generally considered to exemplify

entrepreneurship, innovating, or risk taking.
1 2 3 4 5
C. The leadership in my organization is generally considered to exemplify a no-
nonsense, aggressive results-oriented focus.
1 2 3 4 5
D. The leadership in my organization is generally considered to exemplify
coordinating, organization or smooth-running efficiency.
1 2 3 4 5
3. Management of Employees
1=strongly agree; 2=agree; 3=neither agree nor disagree; 4=disagree; 5=strongly disagree

A. The management style in my organization is characterized by teamwork,

consensus, and participation.
 108

1 2 3 4 5

B. The management style in my organization is characterized by individual risk-

taking, innovation, freedom, and uniqueness.
1 2 3 4 5

C. The management style in my organization is characterized by hard-driving

competitiveness, high demands and achievement.

1 2 3 4 5

D. The management style in my organization is characterized by security of

employment, conformity, predictability, and stability in relationships.
1 2 3 4 5

4. Organization Glue
1=strongly agree; 2=agree; 3=neither agree or disagree; 4=disagree; 5=strongly disagree

A. The glue that holds my organization together is loyalty and mutual trust.
Commitment to this organization runs high.
1 2 3 4 5
B. The glue that holds my organization together is commitment to innovation and
development. There is an emphasis on being on the cutting edge.
1 2 3 4 5
C. The glue that holds my organization together is the emphasis on achievement and
goal accomplishment. Aggressive and winning are common themes.
1 2 3 4 5
D. The glue that holds my organization together is formal rules and policies.
Maintaining a smooth-running organization is important.
1 2 3 4 5
5. Strategic Emphasis
1=strongly agree; 2=agree; 3=neither agree nor disagree; 4=disagree; 5=strongly disagree

A. My organization emphasizes human development. High trust, openness, and

participation persist.
1 2 3 4 5
B. My organization emphasizes acquiring new resources and creating new
challenges. Trying new things and prospecting for opportunities are valued.
1 2 3 4 5
C. My organization emphasizes competitive actions and achievement. Hitting stretch
targets and winning in the marketplace are dominant.
1 2 3 4 5
D. My organization emphasizes permanence and stability. Efficiency, control and
smooth operations are important.
1 2 3 4 5
 109

6. Criteria of Success
1=strongly agree; 2=agree; 3=neither agree nor disagree; 4=disagree; 5=strongly disagree

A. My organization defines success on the basis of the development of human

resources, teamwork, employee commitment, and concern for people.
1 2 3 4 5

B. My organization defines success on the basis of having the most unique or

newest products. It is a product leader and innovator.
1 2 3 4 5

C. My organization defines success on the basis of winning in the marketplace and

outpacing the competition. Competitive market leadership is key.
1 2 3 4 5

D. My organization defines success on the basis of efficiency. Dependable delivery,

smooth scheduling, and low-cost production are critical.
1 2 3 4 5
 110

APPENDIX C:

Permission to Use the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument

 111

APPENDIX D:

Survey Instrument

Section 1 - General Questions

1. What is your role?

1. Non-Management Technical/Professional
2. Supervisory
3. Middle Management
4. Senior Management

2. What is your educational experience?

1. Did not complete high school
2. High school graduate
3. Certificate or associates degree
4. Undergraduate degree
5. Graduate degree

3. How many years have you worked in this company?

Number of years: __________

4. Type of work environment?

1. Manufacturing
2. System Engineering
3. Program Management
4. Other: _________________________

5. Is your primary work in a business environment? ______ or in a technical environment?

________

6. When thinking about your work environment how would you rate your job?
1. It is completely business oriented
2. It is mostly business oriented
3. It is equally business and technically oriented
4. It is mostly technical
5. It is completely technical

7. How many years has your company been using Lean methods
Less than 1 year 1-2 years 3-5 years More than 5 years

8. How many lean professionals (Black Belts) does your business site have?
Dont Know 1 -15 16-30 31-50 More than 50
 112

Section 2. Lean Practices

On a scale from 1 to 5, please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the
following statements.
1=strongly agree; 2=agree; 3=neither agree nor disagree; 4=disagree; 5=strongly disagree
Support

1. Our Companys senior management has objectives for and assumes responsibility for lean
performance.
1 2 3 4 5

2. Management supports employees who come up with a continuous improvement idea.

1 2 3 4 5

3. Management is knowledgeable of lean improvement tools and methodology.

1 2 3 4 5

4. Lean improvement projects have positively impacted our organizations performance.

1 2 3 4 5

5. We use a Lean expert (black belt/green belt) infrastructure for process improvement.
1 2 3 4 5

6. Members of lean project teams have roles and responsibilities clearly identified.
1 2 3 4 5

7. We have trained most staff in Lean process improvement methods.

1 2 3 4 5

8. Our internal work processes have improved due to the lean initiatives.
1 2 3 4 5

9. We keep data to track work improvements all lean projects.

1 2 3 4 5

10. We use measures to evaluate process improvements.

1 2 3 4 5

11. Our lean improvement efforts have positively impacted the quality of our services in the last
two years.
1 2 3 4 5

12. Implemented improvements enable employees to become more efficient.

1 2 3 4 5

13. The number of audit findings has decreased due to our lean improvement initiative.
 113

1 2 3 4 5

14. Our lean improvement efforts have greatly reduced the number of engineering errors
occurring in our company.
1 2 3 4 5

15. Our lean improvement efforts have had a significant impact in controlling costs in the last
two years.
1 2 3 4 5

16. Our company uses lean thinking improvement method for development and implementation
of projects and process improvement.
1 2 3 4 5

Section 3- Organizational Culture - The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument will be

used.

Thank you for your participation in this survey. If you are interested in learning about the results
of the survey, please do not hesitate to contact me. Once the study is complete. I would be happy
to send you a summary of the results.
 114

APPENDIX E:

Academic Research Project Participant Notification E-Mail to Potential Participants

I am a doctoral student who is researching the relationship between organizational

culture and lean implementation as part of a doctoral dissertation through the Pepperdine
University Graduate School of Education and Psychology (GSEP). I am contacting employees
from XYZ Defense Systems division to study this relationship. The findings from this study will
assist aerospace organizations that are implementing quality initiatives by providing an
understanding of what cultural values correspond with successful Lean implementation.

Participation in the study involves completing an electronic survey that takes approximately 15
minutes to complete. Anonymity and confidentiality of survey participants will be preserved at
all times. The names of the participants and the participants employer will not be disclosed or
referenced in any way in any written or verbal context.

Participation is completely voluntary; you may choose not to complete any response, and may
discontinue participation at any time. No information that identifies you personally will be kept,
and your responses will be considered confidential. The data will only be used in an aggregate
form, will be kept in a secure manner for 3 years, and may be used by this researcher in future
research. There are no negative consequences for not participating or for withdrawing from the
study.

To participate in this study, please visit the following link (by pasting the link into your browser
or by holding down the CTRL key and clicking on the link below) the planned cutoff date for
completing the survey is February 27, 2015.

http://surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=XXXXXXXX

This research has been reviewed and approved by the Graduate and Professional Schools IRB at
Pepperdine University. Approval to conduct the study has been granted by the IRB during the
period from January 20, 2015 through January 20, 2016.

If you have any questions about this research, please contact Jesus Arroyo at 310-819-5538 or at
jesus.arroyo@pepperdine.edu.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jesus Arroyo
Doctoral candidate
Pepperdine University
Graduate School of Education and Psychology
Organizational Leadership program
 115

APPENDIX F:

Informed Consent Text

My name is Jesus Arroyo, and I am a student in Organizational Leadership at Pepperdine

University, Graduate School of Education and Psychology, who is currently in the process of

recruiting individuals for my study entitled, Assessment of the Relationship between

Organizational Culture and Lean Implementation in the Aerospace Industry. The professor

supervising my work is Dr. Dellaneve. The study is designed to explore and evaluate the role that

organizational culture has on successful lean implementation and to identify if there is any

relationship between the organizational culture type (Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy, and Market)

and culture dimension (Flexibility versus Control, and Internal versus External) as the

Competing Values Framework and three lean implementation elements (Support, Utilization, and

Infrastructure) define, so I am inviting individuals who work in the aerospace industry to

participate in my study. Please understand that your participation in my study is strictly

voluntary. The following is a description of what your study participation entails, the terms for

participating in the study, and a discussion of your rights as a study participant. Please read this

information carefully before deciding whether or not you wish to participate.

If you should decide to participate in the study, you will be asked to click on a link that will take

you to a web-based survey. It should take approximately 15 minutes to complete the survey you

have been asked to complete. Please complete the survey alone in a single setting.

Your identity will be kept anonymous and the name of you organization will be kept confidential

at all times and in all circumstances where research based on your responses are presented.

Although minimal, there are potential risks that you should consider before deciding to

participate in this study. These risks include that the participants information may be revealed.
 116

As identified above the researcher will take every step to ensure the anonymity of responders and

the name responders aerospace organization. In the event you do experience any concerns,

please feel free to contact Jesus Arroyo, Principle Researcher at

(Jesus.Arroyo@Pepperdine.edu), or Dr. James Dellaneve, Adjunct Professor at Pepperdine

University (James.Dellaneve@Pepperdine.edu). This research study will be reviewed by

Graduate and Professional Schools (GPS) Institutional Review Board, Pepperdine University.

For research-related problems or questions regarding participants rights, please contact Dr.

Thema Bryant-Davis, Chairperson, GPS IRB at Pepperdine University at

gpsirb@pepperdine.edu, 310-568-5753.

The potential benefits to you for participating in the study are that this study will assist aerospace

organizations that are considering implementing lean initiatives by providing an understanding

of what cultural values correspond with successful lean implementation. If managers are aware

of the cultural underpinnings of the lean initiative and are attentive to the influence of culture-

shared values and norms, the initiative is more likely to be successful. A successful Lean

implementation could help improve the organizations systems and processes.

The process improvements and the reductions in system breakdowns and engineering errors

could have a significant impact on reducing the costs associated with engineering products.

If you should decide to participate and find you are not interested in completing the survey in its

entirety, you have the right to discontinue at any point without being questioned about your

decision. You also do not have to answer any of the questions on the survey that you prefer not

to answer--just leave such items blank

By clicking on the first radio button, I acknowledge that I understand the nature of the study,
 117

potential risks as a participant, and the means by which my identity will be kept confidential. I

also acknowledge that (a) I am over the age of 18, and that (b) I give my permission to be

voluntary participant in the outlined study.

Sincerely,

Jesus Arroyo
 118

APPENDIX G:

Certification for Protecting Human Research Participants

Figure G-1 shows the certification for Protecting Human Research Participants

that was received by the researcher.

Figure G1. Certification for Protecting Human Research Participants.

 119

APPENDIX H

Institutional Review Board Approval Letter

120